2:48 So I guess I've got to hand it here.
2:49 I'm going to ask Right now?
3:34 Oh, okay. 3:35 They'll kick stuff off officially.
3:36 Oh, they're gonna start?
4:01 Good afternoon, everybody. 4:04 Before we begin our meeting of the Portland City Council, we have a pre-gavel recognition from, uh, uh, from our friends at AARP and the Age Friendly Network. 4:14 Am I turning it over to you, Councilor?
4:16 Or am I turning over to Stacy?
4:16 I believe I'm starting.
4:17 I'm going to start it. 4:19 To start us, I'm going to turn it over to Stacy Triplett with the AARP Oregon.
4:24 I'm Stacy Triplett, Engagement Director for AARP Oregon.
4:27 I live in District 2 and I work in District 4.
4:30 And we are so excited today for the city and partners for this moment of fanfare to move us into the next 5-year cycle of age-friendly actions. 4:40 This age-friendly plaque is truly an expansive effort. 4:44 It represents what everybody has been working on together, and we hope that everyone finds a role in it. 4:49 Thank you very much to the Raging Grannies who sung us in here, who were founded over 15 years ago. 4:56 Oregon has 13 current age-friendly members from Hood River to Ashland, and Portland is in very good company in that network. 5:03 Portland was the first U.S.
5:05 City involved in the World Health Organization's Global Age-Friendly Research Project that started in 20— In 2006, that research project led to the creation of global and national age-friendly networks, which Portland and Multnomah County remain a part of right now.
5:22 Today, as I present this plaque to the City of Portland, recognizing that the city and its numerous partners have completed a cycle of assessment, action planning, implementation, and evaluation, I will read the plaque out. 5:35 AARP says Portland, Oregon is a member in good standing of the AARP Network of Age-Friendly States and Communities has successfully completed a cycle of improvement as an—.
5:45 And is recognized for its age-friendly leadership achievements and continuing commitment toward being a livable community for people of all ages.
5:52 That is the 2026, uh, plaque that I will leave here.
5:56 I will not take it back with me.
5:58 As such, Portland is recognized as a member in good standing with the other 1,020 current members and growing. 6:06 Congrats from AARP Oregon. 6:08 Thank you for all the leadership getting the community active in advancing age-friendly outcomes spanning so many aspects of housing, transportation, public spaces, and beyond. 6:18 And now back to you, Councilor President Dunphy.
6:22 Thank you so much, Stacy. 6:23 Colleagues, I've had the privilege of being part of Portland's age-friendly journey for more than a decade, dating back to my time as staffer for late Commissioner Nick Fish. 6:32 I witnessed the City of Portland and Portland State University support Portland's broader age-friendly efforts on housing, civic engagement, mobility, and health and well-being. 6:44 Over time, the community infused age-friendly policies into the Portland Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and other policies and plans. 6:53 Portland's age-friendly features include world-class natural features and green spaces and strong opportunities for lifelong education and community engagement.
7:03 Real work remains ahead, and I'm excited to work with Councilor Koyama Lane, with Multnomah County, with AARP, and others on revitalizing our age-friendly efforts so that Portlanders of all ages and abilities can live their best lives in our cities. 7:18 It's my honor to turn over to Irma Jimenez, the Multnomah County Aging, Disability, and Veterans Services Division.
7:26 Good afternoon. 7:26 As he stated, my name is Irma Jimenez. 7:28 I am the division director for Multnomah County's Aging, Disability, and Veterans Services Division. 7:33 Stacy from ARP, who noted that Portland was the first U.S.
7:36 City to work with the World Health Organization.
7:39 And Council President Dunphy highlighted Portland and Multnomah County's partnership. 7:45 Multnomah County Aging, Disability, and Veterans Services has been involved in each step of Portland's journey, including our longtime role in the Advisory Council for an Age-Friendly Portland and Multnomah County. 7:56 In 2014, Multnomah County joined the ARP network of age-friendly states and communities as part of As part of our efforts, we focused on making sure the county is a good place to work no matter your age or your ability. 8:10 As Portlanders Area Agency on Aging, we continue to innovate, coordinate with national and state partners, and deliver key services and supports to older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans. 8:22 Recently, we launched an age-friendly business program that aims to attune local business to the needs of older adults and to offer quality services that work for people no matter their age and their— Councilmember Herbold.
8:34 Nor their disability.
8:35 We are excited to partner on what comes next. 8:37 Together, the city and the county can create a healthy, supportive, age-friendly community.
8:47 All right, um, I want to give a huge heartfelt thanks to Council President Dunphy, AARP, Multnomah County, our many community partners for the work that you do every day to make Portland more welcoming, connected, and caring for people of every age. 9:02 I also have to give a very special thank you to Thank you to our Raging Grannies for joining us and sharing your music today. 9:10 I see you show up at rallies, protests, community events, in moments when people really need courage and some joy the most. 9:19 I met you first many years back at a Trans Day of Visibility march, and I know that there are Raging Granny groups all over the world, and I'm really proud that we have the largest cohort here in Portland in this chapter. 9:34 And also, they—.
9:35 They informed me today that I'm only 10 years away from being able to join the club, so I am counting down. 9:41 You remind us that older adults are not just sitting on the sidelines. 9:44 Older adults are leading, organizing, singing out, helping move our communities forward. 9:50 My office also has been really proud to support members of the District 3 community in the Mount Tabor neighborhood whose ideas and advocacy recently secured funding through the AARP Challenge Grant. 10:03 And this These are examples of what people— people-powered change looks like. 10:07 So today, as we recognize Older Americans Month, this year's theme, Champion Your Health, I want us to think bigger than individual choices because health is shaped by the communities we build. 10:17 Health is shaped by the housing we create. 10:20 Health is shaped by the transportation that we provide. 10:23 Health is shaped by whether people feel connected, valued, and safe at every stage of life. 10:29 So that's why my office is focused on some 4 big ideas in this area. 10:33 The first one is being able to grow here at every age. 10:37 The second is everyone ages. 10:39 Aging is not something that's someone else's issue. 10:43 If we're lucky enough to keep living, then we are aging, and we all deserve to age with dignity, connection, and opportunity. 10:50 The third is longevity. 10:52 That means living well with health, purpose, joy, and belonging, and planning for well-being across An entire life course. 11:00 And finally, partnership. 11:01 An age-friendly Portland only happens when public agencies, nonprofits, educators, businesses, community members are working together across generations. 11:10 So please stay tuned. 11:11 We're going to be continuing this, this work in bigger, bolder ways. 11:16 Be on the lookout. 11:17 And here's to a Portland where aging is joyful and empowering for all. 11:22 And now I am going to read the proclamation on behalf of Mayor Keith Wilson, who cannot join us this afternoon but is very supportive. 11:32 Whereas the City of Portland is home to over 647,805 people, of whom 11.6% are 65 years of age or older, and whereas the number of older adults in Portland is projected to increase significantly in the future, with estimates indicating that by 2050, 27.2% of our population will be comprised of people 65 years of age or older, and whereas Portland's older adults represent Diverse races, ethnicities, cultures, communities, neighborhoods, and generations, contributing to the rich tapestry of our state. 12:09 And whereas older Portlanders continue to be active, engaged, and influential members of our community, participating in volunteer activities, mentoring, and contributing to the workforce. 12:20 And whereas May is designated as Older Americans Month, a time to celebrate and honor the achievements, contributions, and sacrifices of older Portlanders. 12:28 And whereas the theme for Older Americans Month 2026 is Champion Your Health, encouraging us to take an active role in managing and advocating for our health. 12:37 And whereas we strive to build age-friendly communities for people ages 0 to 100+ who are included, engaged, and can thrive. 12:46 And whereas the City of Portland is committed to promoting the health, independence, and well-being of older Americans by addressing issues affecting older adults, including housing, caregiving, workforce, and economic vitality, as well as accessible, inclusive programs to promote the health and well-being of older adults.
13:04 Now, therefore, I, I am not Keith Wilson, but Keith Wilson, the mayor of City of Portland, Oregon, the City of Roses, does hereby proclaim May 2026 to be Older Americans Month in Portland and encourage all businesses and community members to engage with and support older Americans, their families, and their accomplishments to celebrate their contributions. 13:27 Thank you so much.
13:35 Thank you all so much for being here today. 13:38 I am now going to go ahead and call our meeting to order. 13:42 Can we please call the roll?
13:49 Pirtle-Guiney? 13:51 Ryan?
14:06 And can we please read the rules of decorum?
14:09 Thank you. 14:10 Welcome to Portland City Council. 14:11 To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda. 14:21 Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage. 14:25 Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. 14:29 Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. 14:31 The presiding officer preserves order. 14:34 Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. 14:42 If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. 14:45 Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. 14:47 Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. 14:52 Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. 14:56 Your testimony should address the matter being considered. 14:58 When testifying, state your name for the record. 15:00 Your address is not necessary. 15:02 If you are a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. 15:06 Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls their name.
15:11 Thank you very much. 15:12 Colleagues, we have an incredibly busy agenda today. 15:15 We are already scheduled to stay until 6, but we absolutely have to get through this agenda today. 15:20 Many of these things need to be approved or moved Moving forward before the budget is approved. 15:26 And so I'm hoping that we can all keep that in mind. 15:29 To that end, the consent agenda item today has been pulled to the regular agenda at the request of staff. 15:36 I believe that this is a— this item is also a must-pass item today for contractual reasons. 15:42 So I would move to place it on the agenda between items 6 and 7 on the regular agenda to get it out of the way. 15:48 That is the first item after we finish up the second reading.
15:54 Are there any other requests to amend the agenda, to reorder items, or reschedule an item for a future meeting date?
16:01 Councilor— Vice President Clark.
16:03 Thank you, Councilor President. 16:04 I would like to move that we take item 10 and move it up until after item 5, make it item 6.
16:14 Item 6 is the— before the item pulled through consent.
16:20 Councilor Clark has moved to move item 10, the water bonds item, to the top of our regular agenda after the second readings. 16:28 And Councilor Smith has seconded it.
16:31 Point of information, can you tell us why?
16:33 Just a sense of urgency on this. 16:37 Pretty straightforward.
16:42 Are there people signed up for the water bond There are.
16:46 There are 20 people signed up for this.
16:47 Okay, so I suspect that many of those people would not be able to attend and testify if we reordered the agenda, and they might have strong feelings about it considering how drastically this could impact water rates over the next few years. 17:00 So I recommend that we maintain the agenda the same, but I understand this is a vote, so I'm just saying that for my colleagues as they consider their vote.
17:08 Thank you, Councilor. 17:09 Any further discussion?
17:11 Oh, um, and One more point of information.
17:14 What you mentioned about moving the consent item, I guess, are they— are those separate actions that we need to vote for your change and then Councilor Clark's change?
17:24 I think it is one. 17:27 I don't know. 17:28 I'm looking at the agenda.
17:28 I think you can decide how you want to handle it.
17:31 Okay. 17:31 I would like to divide the questions.
17:32 Let's do 2 separate. 17:33 And also, I misspoke. 17:35 I'd actually like to have the pulled item heard after item 6. 17:38 7, Because that is the second reading of an ordinance also. 17:40 So it would go between items 7 and 8. 17:44 So I'm happy to— yeah, let's divide the question. 17:46 Let's call the roll on the item, on the scheduling of the pulled item from consent, and then we'll have a second vote on reordering item 12 to the top of the agenda. 17:56 So can we call the roll on the first part?
17:59 Calling the vote on reordering consent agenda item 6 to after regular agenda item 7. 18:05 Kanal.
18:07 Pirtle-Guiney. 18:09 Ryan.
18:24 And that agenda reorder is approved.
18:27 Thank you. 18:27 We call the roll on moving item number 10— uh, 12 up.
18:33 And we're moving item— this is a vote to move item number 12 after, uh, the reordered item 6.
18:40 Wait, do I have the wrong numbers?
18:41 Yeah, or sorry, item 10.
18:43 Item 10. 18:44 Sorry, I have the wrong numbers on my sheet. 18:46 Yeah, moving item number 10 up to— where did you want to put it?
18:49 Um, maybe before 7, after 6.
18:53 Okay, between items 5 and 7.
18:57 Okay. 18:58 Okay, so voting to reorder item 10 to be heard after the newly moved consent item order agenda item 6, but before item 7 on the regular agenda.
19:10 That sounds right to me.
19:15 Pirtle-Guiney? 19:16 Ryan?
19:18 First reading, we have people here to testify.
19:31 No, because I'm worried that people who signed up to testify won't know that this order change happened and therefore won't be here in time to testify.
19:45 I'm really struggling with this one. 19:47 Could we like Find out if the people who are signed up are here.
20:07 Green, no. 20:08 Zimmerman, aye.
20:20 No. 20:21 So the reorder, uh, fails with 7 no, 4 aye.
20:27 Okay, the agenda is approved. 20:32 Can we please move to public communications?
20:39 First up for public communications, we have Metro G Hello, everyone.
20:49 Um, so I noticed that you had a lot of promises for Portland, and there's also a lot of issues that you're working on, such as homelessness, addiction, the $171 million deficit gap, 203 jobs being cut from the city, transferring $27 million from the Portland Clean Energy Fund from Well, clean energy to something else. 21:14 And then the $2.7 billion trade deficit in Oregon.
21:17 But I'm here to talk about a solution that would work on a lot of these issues, um, in addition to promoting pre-pandemic foot traffic, which is changing the pay schedules in Oregon. 21:32 It's instead of having a universal basic income, we're changing the frequency in which people get paid, meaning people would have more financial freedom to do what they need to do in the times that they need to do it.
21:46 Um, I believe that this could be done making a POS system or something like that that takes better accountability of people's hours, um, the discrepancies and the taxes that need to be taken.
22:03 Um, right now there's also $240 million to $400 million loss to wage theft every year. 22:09 So even if this program ran at like 10% capacity, which would be considering failing by most standards, we would be covering potentially up to $40 million, which would help not only run the program, but also mean there'd be less loss of jobs and there'd also be no new tax created to do this.
22:33 And this could also mean that there's less action needing to be taken from BOLI since there's about 120,000 cases made each year and less than 5% of them are even taken to BOLI.
22:52 That's really all I have to say.
22:55 Thank you very much.
22:57 All right, thank you.
23:00 Next is Jesse Atkins— apologies, Akins.
23:14 So make sure to introduce yourself.
23:16 I'm Jesse Akins. 23:18 Um, I am an unemployed veteran of the United States Army. 23:22 I live in District 3. 23:25 Um, I'm pretty annoyed, honestly, with a lot of the things that have been going on lately. 23:30 Um, and basically it comes down to morals and ethics, right? 23:38 This budget thing we're dealing with, with the Moda Center and all the backroom dealing and the backtalk and the— all of the duplicity that's been in play. 23:48 Um, it's really frustrating to see All of that go down. 23:54 Um, there's a lot of us in this city who live on a fixed income who can't, you know, can't afford all of our utility rates to go up, can't afford— that includes the street utility fee, unfortunately. 24:06 Um, it includes, you know, all of our gas money going up, which we can't control. 24:12 You know, we can't afford all of the things that we have to afford in order to sacrifice In order for MOTA funding to go through. 24:22 We have this huge bundle of money that we could use to solve a lot of problems for a lot of people that are environmentally related, right? 24:30 Between, again, all those utility fees. 24:34 Think about how much a renter pays in utility fees in this city. 24:38 Like, it's wild that we are talking about transferring funds from one— from this other fund.
24:45 To the Moda Center when the Moda Center should be funded already in the lease, in the ordinances that go into it. 24:53 Those, those go from one tenant to the next tenant according to those documents. 25:03 Why are we worried about the PSIF? 25:04 Why are we pulling money out of the PSIF? 25:06 That money should already be there. 25:08 Why are we sacrificing everybody else's cost of living? 25:13 For a basketball team, which we love. 25:16 I've loved the Blazers since I was a kid. 25:20 But are they really the heart of Portland, or are the people who live here the heart of Portland? 25:27 The people who are struggling every day, the people who can't— who make just enough, they can't get enough money from any assistance agencies because they're just over that edge, but they don't make enough to survive all the cost increases that we constantly, constantly, constantly, constantly vote Let's cut everything else. 25:48 Let's leave the— let's, let's, let's raid the fund that we do have for renovation that's already paid for. 25:56 Why? 25:58 Why are we doing that? 26:02 Let's think about our morals and our ethics. 26:04 Who are we screwing over, and who are we protecting, and who are we helping? 26:08 Some of us have already made that decision in previous sessions. 26:10 Councilor Regarding the Moda Center, his name signed on it. 26:15 He already, he already displayed his. 26:17 I'd like to see yours.
26:19 Thank you very much.
26:28 Welcome. 26:31 Good to see you guys.
26:33 Ladies and gentlemen of the City Council, my name is Marshall McFarland.
26:37 Good evening, everyone. 26:37 I am Ghalib bin Imhotep El. 26:40 And Portland is being besieged by a fiatocracy. 26:44 What is a fiatocracy? 26:46 Fiat, an authoritative, arbitrary order or decree issued by someone in power. 26:52 Fiatocracy, rule by authoritative, arbitrary order or decree. 26:58 What is fiatocracy really costing the city of Portland? 27:02 We're told that democracy is the price that we pay for a civilized society, but Portland is being taxed By a fiatocracy. 27:09 Our government has devolved into an unsustainable, self-sustaining loop where democracy, ruled by the people, is being replaced by fiatocracy, ruled by an arbitrary administrative class under a decree, internal fees, and a willful ignorance to the public's trust that somebody put in power. 27:28 Since numbers don't lie, consider these numbers. 27:30 There are 98 active communities Whose costs or amounts that I can't— able to— excuse me, that aren't able to be properly sounded with public access tools, but I can verify that they're over $20 million.
27:43 Then you've got the 12-member council that costs $1.6 million per office.
27:49 That's another $20 million. 27:51 Internal interagency rates, which is the rent the city charges itself, has ballooned to over half a billion dollars. 27:58 While the public is left clamoring for meager grants or loans from an overwhelmed Small Business Association that has its own bureaucratic quagmire to deal with. 28:07 Our region lost nearly 9,000 jobs, ranking us 4th worst in the nation. 28:12 We are spending $23 million a year on legislative overhead and facing a $170 million budget shortfall. 28:19 The city's own audits show material weaknesses in financial reporting, according to their auditing law firm Baker Tilly. 28:25 There's literally no accounting for the efficiency that their budgeting should accommodate With abundance. 28:31 Human Resources Rule— Administrative Rule 11.01 speaks of public trust, yet it's being disregarded in its totality.
28:39 We prioritize emergency ordinances that hike employee benefits while tabling independent transparency oversight.
28:46 When a government treats the public as a revenue source instead of beneficiaries of a public trust, they cease becoming a republic and become a public liability.
28:57 True du jour governance begins with reference, relation, and regard to the people, the public, the public that put— the same public that put the mayor and you 12 wonderful beings on that dais. 29:09 Please, councilors, no more arbitrary decrees, no more intergovernmental gouging agreements, and no more willful ignorance of the public's trust. 29:18 Our government must refer to the public, relate to the public, and regard the public or be restructured. 29:24 By the public. 29:26 I will always offer solutions. 29:29 This document I've already submitted to the councilor for public record— or the council clerk for public record. 29:35 It's also for your record should you undertake to review it. 29:39 Thank you for your time, and it is will that your ethical standards align with reference, regard, and relation to the public.
29:46 Thank you very much.
30:00 Good afternoon, councilors.
30:03 My name is James Donnelly and I live in East Portland, um, but I'm really speaking for myself. 30:09 In Buddhism, as in other philosophies that have endured, one teaching is that there is a limit to compassion. 30:15 It is indeed good to help others, but that can be done only to the degree that it does not cause yourself also to suffer. 30:23 For if not, this helping just increases the overall suffering in the world. 30:27 And if unchecked, causing yourself to suffer will eventually destroy you and leave the person you are trying to help with no one. 30:34 Portland has been trying to be compassionate and has been suffering for it for 6 years. 30:39 It needs to stop.
30:41 Homelessness, high housing costs, high medical costs— these are all worthy problems to solve. 30:47 But Portland did not create these problems. 30:50 They were created by governmental policies at the federal level and ultimately can be solved only at the federal level. 30:56 At best, all Portland and Oregon can do is take care of their own. 31:01 Yet Portland City seems to have little, if any, residency requirements for receiving extra governmental services for help. 31:08 And by residency, I mean people who have called Portland their home before they ran into problems. 31:12 It is not sustainable to simultaneously offer more supportive social services than other cities, allow anyone who has just wandered across the city line to receive them, and keep the city solvent. 31:23 I stress, it is not sustainable, not in 2026 America.
31:31 Thank you very much.
31:49 Um, first off, I'd like to thank Councilor Dunphy. 31:52 I read an article the other day. 31:53 It sounds like he's trying to hold the Blazer owner, you know, kind of in check and trying to, um, fight him to keep, you know, the money Going the right way out there. 32:04 So what I'm talking about today is 3 things. 32:07 These things I think are all important to the city, to its well-being. 32:13 First one is, I was going to wear a shirt today that said, blame all your problems on the homeless, close your business, and GTFO. 32:24 But I didn't have the funds to get that shirt ready. 32:26 Anyways, on closing of the businesses, I kind of feel like It's trendy for Portlanders to close their business.
32:33 I'm going to close my business. 32:34 And what I'd like you all to do, city councilors, when you walk into a business, take a look at the security guards. 32:40 The homeless and people that have addictions have always stolen from businesses. 32:43 Security guards aren't doing their jobs. 32:45 You walk in there, they're looking at their phones half the time. 32:46 If I was doing that job, I would look at my phone too, here and there, a couple times during the shift, just when I really needed to. 32:53 But these businesses are closing because It's cool to close, I think, really. 32:58 Second thing, bathrooms. 33:00 We need more bathrooms in the city just to have a clean city. 33:03 You have a construction job, you ought to build 4 or 5 more bathrooms just like Pioneer Square with a security guard around town. 33:10 Lastly, last thing I was doing, trash cans. 33:14 You know, a lot of businesses just don't put trash cans out. 33:16 Why? 33:16 Because yeah, a homeless person will break into a trash can. 33:18 So no trash cans. 33:19 You know, they don't want to clean up one time. 33:21 You know, it's too much to ask. 33:22 You know, Put the people and the people of Portland, ask them, you know, to kind of do something for the city, like put out trash cans, you know, and say, here, you want trash can, pay the city $500 to have a trash can. 33:33 Where's the person supposed to throw their trash, you know? 33:35 And this kind of goes to the bathrooms too. 33:37 If someone doesn't want to clean one bathroom one time, you know, or once every couple months, you know, it's just, you got to ask the people of Portland if you want to keep the city nice. 33:47 Trash cans, got to keep them around, the ones that are hard to break into.
33:50 You know, and bathrooms, 4 or 5. 33:53 And if you guys need workers for them, my temp agency boss can supply them. 33:56 Maybe you guys can throw me a little money or something for all the work I do on the side and don't get paid for. 34:01 That's it. 34:02 Thank you so much.
34:05 That completes public comment.
34:07 Thank you very much, everybody who came to testify. 34:10 Um, colleagues, uh, next item is a quick president update. 34:14 Um, I'd like to take a moment very quickly to tell you all about a new rule Moving forward, I'm going to be asking everyone who is participating virtually to turn their cameras on during votes. 34:24 This is the only way we can know if you are absent or present for the vote before the clerk calls your name. 34:29 You also may notice we have participating virtually for folks who are participating virtually so that folks in the audience and at home can know that they're not just absent, they're online. 34:40 I'll give reminders and a little time to get on camera before we do call the roll. 34:44 Call roll when that happens. 34:46 I'm going to turn this over to Councilor Green for a very brief update as well.
34:50 Yeah, thank you, Council President. 34:54 On April 3rd, the Portland DSA held a town hall where 4 city councilors who are endorsed members of the Portland City Council, myself included, were present. 35:06 And 3 of those councilors constitute a quorum of the Public Works Committee. 35:11 And so I'm only bringing this up because we did receive a grievance recently that said Hey, I noticed that there were 3 city councilors of the Public Works Committee at this town hall. 35:20 We think this might potentially be in violation of public meetings law. 35:24 So my instinct, rather than to sort of say, well, I think that you are wrong, or I think that we didn't talk about anything that was relevant in that committee, was to sort of take seriously the grievance and try to use the cure procedure that is in law. 35:36 So within Oregon state law, Oregon public meetings law, you can cure You can recover a misstep or a violation of failing to properly notice a meeting if you do it within 45 days in a publicly noticed forum, and then you read into the record and you place into the record a transcript of what happened there. 35:54 So I'm just going to take a brief moment to talk about the nature of the questions that we got into with the members of that audience. 36:03 We did talk about the transportation utility fee. 36:06 Yes.
36:07 In the Committee of the Whole at that time, but we talked about that. 36:11 Earthquake preparedness and the CEI hub was a matter of conversation. 36:14 Emergency management and the importance of having NET volunteers was a topic of conversations. 36:20 People in that town hall wanted to know what council's doing on implementing a human rights investment screen, so we talked about that as well. 36:28 Folks wanted to know about whether or not we're going to move forward with trying to do a more aggressive relocation assistance.
36:35 And we talked about that as well. 36:37 The Moda Center Stadium deal came up in that meeting as well. 36:40 And your councilors had a dialogue around where they're at on that. 36:45 There was a request to look at our sister city relationship with Ashkelon. 36:50 That was in that town hall as well. 36:52 And then finally, there was a desire for us to pursue taxes on large corporations. 36:57 So councilors talked about that as well. 36:59 So while it's not obvious that any of those topics would come before the Public Works Okay. 37:03 —In any meaningful timeframe in the near period. 37:07 Because of our committee structure and the way we can refer items to basically any committee, I can't rule out that none of those items would ever come before the Public Works Committee. 37:15 So we're taking this moment just to read in the record that we had that conversation, that that happened on April 3rd. 37:22 We're placing into the public record the transcript that will be available. 37:26 And going forward, we'll have to do one of two things. 37:28 We'll either notice it I would love to. 37:30 You could advertise it as a meeting of the Public Works Committee, which would require the chair over here to say we're going to have a socialist town hall Public Works Committee meeting. 37:37 And I would invite you to do it. 37:38 I think they'd love to have you. 37:39 Same with Councilor Smith. 37:41 The more the merrier in the big tent that we call the Portland DSA. 37:45 But at the very minimum, we would just read a disclaimer and say, hey, you do have a quorum of your councilors on this committee. 37:51 There are things that we have to be very careful about. 37:53 We would just decline to comment on that and say Next meeting of the Public Works Committee is on X date. 37:59 We encourage you to come and bring your questions there. 38:01 So I'll stop talking there, and I think there's 2 other councilors that might want to speak something in the record as well.
38:10 Um, thank you, Councilor Green. 38:11 I think you covered most of that. 38:13 I, uh, sat down with our city attorney Robert Taylor and also spoke about this. 38:18 I know that all of us care a lot about transparency and openness, and Do you recall that we also talked about how we could answer questions, but this was a place that we could not have any deliberation or decision-making? 38:32 And Robert Taylor agrees that we can have some sort of statement to make sure that we read that at the beginning of any time that we're all appearing at the same place. 38:41 And that can apply for any councilors that might make up a quorum if they're at a Socialist Town Hall or a Metro Chamber event or whatever. 38:53 We can just do that to make sure that we're covering our bases. 38:55 And the only quotes I saw from me was around the CEI Hub. 39:01 I said it is really scary. 39:03 I think more people should be scared. 39:05 And around Vision Zero, I said that we have recommitted to Vision Zero. 39:09 I think that's about it. 39:10 Around just infrastructure, I said city government should not be a gatekeeper. 39:14 It should be a megaphone for the People of Portland. 39:16 Those are some quotes. 39:17 They will be put into this meeting as an attachment, the transcript will. 39:23 Thank you.
39:24 Thank you, Councilor.
39:27 Yeah, thank you, Council President. 39:29 I was the 3rd of the councilors who was a member of that committee. 39:32 Just appreciate the work to get that into the record. 39:36 Again, nothing that I anticipate coming to that committee, but can't rule it out. 39:41 I will note the committee started meeting in April, but we created it in, Later in April, but we created it in February. 39:48 So there's a little bit of a challenge there with the timing as well. 39:52 But appreciate the transparency on it. 39:55 And I'll note this was a publicly noticed event, and I always have my calendar posted of the places I'm going to be in public. 40:03 So you can check all of our websites, portland.gov/ourlastname usually has it, even if it's not in the immediate full council website. 40:10 Thank you.
40:11 Thank you, councilors.
40:13 Can I add one thing? 40:14 Yes, please.
40:15 So I'm a socialist. 40:17 I was at the meeting. 40:18 I am not part of the Public Works Committee, so I was included in part of the violation of the— or I was listed as one of the people there, but technically I did not commit a quorum violation. 40:28 I don't think— I think we're doing the cure right now. 40:31 But I just wanted to flag for members of the public that what is essentially happening with the quorum rules that were There was an attempt to correct the quorum rules and some of the issues with them at the state legislature, and that was vetoed by the governor. 40:45 And what you are going to see moving forward is that if there is a town hall and, say, you're councilors, there's a tricky topic that comes up for committee. 40:53 If I wanted to avoid answering your questions as a member of the committee about those topics, what I would do is I would invite 3 members of the committee to come with me so that when you ask your question, I could say, Whoops, I'm so sorry about that. 41:06 We actually can't answer any questions about that because there's a quorum here. 41:11 That is going to be the material impact on you as voters and residents of Portlanders trying to get answers from your elected officials at public meetings. 41:19 And I certainly don't believe that there should be any deliberations behind the scenes without the public present and available to understand that. 41:27 But I want to point out the access issues that you are going to face moving forward. 41:32 If, uh, if that happens. 41:34 So I, I just want to be clear about why, if we're holding a meeting moving forward, if we can't answer your questions, why that might happen. 41:42 Thanks.
41:43 Thank you, Councilor. 41:46 City Administrator Lee, do we have any updates on the city's response to the federal interventions?
41:52 Yes, we do. 41:53 The hearing actually did conclude, and there is something posted online on our website As it relates to the hearing officer, uh, releasing her, uh, decision on this on June the 5th at 3:00 PM.
42:10 So that ruling will be released at that time.
42:15 Thank you, sir. 42:18 Can we please call item number 4?
42:22 Item 4, consider appeal by Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Association against the hearings officer's decision to approve with conditions a planned development land division and environmental review for the creation of 12 single dwelling lots and 1 multi-dwelling lot in the Pleasant Valley neighborhood, LU23-003731, LDS ENPD document number 2026-144.
42:48 Thank you. 42:50 Uh, on April 23rd, Council voted 8 to 1 to tentatively deny the appeal and uphold the hearings officer's decision with conditions, with revised findings. 43:01 The revised findings were prepared and posted on the council agenda website on Friday. 43:05 We are now ready to take a final vote. 43:08 May I have a motion to deny the appeal, uphold the decision of the hearings officer, and adopt the findings?
43:20 Councilor Ryan moves, Councilor Kanal seconds. 43:22 Can we please call the roll?
43:46 Clark, absent. 43:48 Green?
43:52 Avalos, absent. 43:55 Smith, absent. 43:56 Dunphy?
44:00 And the motion is approved with 7 aye votes, 1 nay, and 3 absent. 44:07 The appeal is— oh, pardon me, 8. 44:09 8 Aye votes.
44:11 Thank you very much. 44:12 The appeal is denied. 44:13 The decision of the hearings officer is upheld and the findings are adopted. 44:18 Can we please call item 5?
44:23 Item 5, approve funding recommendations of the Portland Children's Levy Allocation Committee for July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029, document number 2026-132.
44:36 Colleagues, last week we heard public testimony on this item and moved it to a second reading without debate. 44:41 Today we will discuss and vote. 44:43 We have staff available in the room to answer any questions about this, so we are gonna move now into council discussion. 44:50 Councilor Kanal.
44:51 Thank you. 44:52 I do have a question for staff, so I can wait as they come up, but—.
44:55 Great. 44:56 Come on up, folks.
45:03 I'll let you all introduce yourself for the record first, and thank you for your work on this.
45:07 Thanks, Councilor. 45:08 My name is Meg McElroy. 45:09 I'm the interim director at the Children's Levy. 45:11 I use she/her pronouns.
45:13 I use she/her pronouns, and I am a grant manager at the Portland Children's Levy.
45:19 And I'm Katrina Peterson. 45:20 I'm the policy and engagement coordinator at the Portland Children's Levy.
45:25 Thanks. 45:25 My, my question, um, It's phrased simply, but I imagine the answer may be complex. 45:32 When we talked about this item last year, there was a great deal of testimony that related to the question of, is it relevant when a grantee aims to serve a particular target population, whether or not the organization itself is led by members of the community that it aims to serve uniquely? 45:54 Um, in other words, if the, if the, uh, board or the, um, leadership is, is members of the community or, or can include some members of that community. 46:04 This was a, a conversation that didn't really get resolved in the context of the philosophical, but one of the questions that I recognize that I don't believe this question was directed at anybody up here, uh, last year, but was if that's something that we even collect information on. 46:18 Do we know, not necessarily for every grant category, but for the categories that are aiming to serve a targeted population, whether or not— do we even have the data on whether the board or executives are of that community or identify as such? 46:36 Is that information that has started to be collected? 46:40 And if— and can you just walk us through any progress on that front?
46:44 Sure. 46:45 I think I can begin answering that question, and then I can kick it over to Meg to flesh it out a little bit. 46:51 We know that—.
46:53 So currently, and not including those that we're looking at today as being approved, but our current portfolio, we have 94 grants.
47:01 And of those 94 grants, 71% are from organizations with a majority of BIPOC staff. 47:09 PCL does collect demographic data on the boards of directors, the employees.
47:19 Of the staff, and those are reported to us. 47:22 We also collect demographic information on the clients of the organization, whether those are parents or children and youth.
47:32 We do not use demographic data such as that in the decision-making of the funding process and cannot do so under the guise of the current executive order.
47:44 Yeah, so Thank you for that. 47:46 Uh, that's super helpful. 47:47 I, I guess sometimes an organization may be applying to serve, um, one— they're not all applying to serve the same populations, right? 47:58 So, and, and I'll also note that I think, um, and I'm speaking here as a person who identifies as BIPOC myself but not Black, and there are grant programs that Yes. 48:11 Or I should say there were applications which were seeking to serve the Black community specifically. 48:16 I don't think that my inclusion on a board necessarily creates representation for the Black community in this context. 48:25 I want to just be clear about that. 48:27 I think there are uniquenesses to different experiences. 48:31 So in terms of disaggregating that data, do you collect it in the context of what they are applying, the organization is applying for a specific program to serve? 48:41 In other words, if they're applying to serve BIPOC communities, it might be different than if they're applying to serve women and girls.
48:46 Yes. 48:48 Also because of the executive order, I'm going to kick that over to Meg.
48:52 Sure. 48:53 Absolutely, we do collect that information. 48:55 And I want to sort of take a step back and try to explain how we ask questions of all applicants. 49:01 So when an organization is applying for a grant from the Children's Levy, they're applying to operate specific program services. 49:08 So we're trying to understand what is the service you're trying to provide, who are you trying to provide it to, and what's your experience and success doing so? 49:15 And so part of understanding that is understanding that information. 49:19 And organizations that can answer those questions well and make that case tend to score better from the perspective of reviewers in how they talk about their work. 49:29 So there's sort of— we're asking those questions across the board regardless of who the applicant is as an organization. 49:35 We want to understand the program's ability to have success with whoever they're trying to serve. 49:40 In addition to that, we are collecting demographics. 49:43 They are disaggregated. 49:44 We've been doing that since 2020. 49:45 We've reported it out annually. 49:47 All those reports are available on our website, and I would be happy to follow up with you with those disaggregated data for your information at any time.
49:56 If I may jump in from the recent small grants application that we Just concluded the funding round for. 50:05 As a part of that application and some of the questions that we asked, there are questions about describing the organization's mission, history, and populations, and how they involve the population they serve in their work. 50:18 And then in the scoring criteria that are used to evaluate the application, we—.
50:25 Points are awarded based on How they—.
50:28 How the organization's founding and history.
50:35 Like, the applicant demonstrates at least 3 years of experience delivering programming with children, youth, and families in alignment with its mission.
50:44 They describe how the population to be served is involved in determining the mission and activities of the organization. 50:51 They explain how they gather client and community feedback.
50:54 And how they use that feedback to inform or change their programming and policies. 50:58 They are also awarded points based on whether or not they're trauma-informed and have experience serving that population, if that's helpful information.
51:11 Yeah, I, I think that's very helpful. 51:12 In particular, they describe how the population to be served is involved in determining the mission and activities of the organization. 51:18 I felt compelled to This is just based on the conversation from last year and to give the opportunity, 'cause I know something had been done, but I appreciate the detail on what that was, and I'm prepared to support this today. 51:28 Thank you.
51:31 Yes, thank you, Council President. 51:32 Colleagues, I won't do the long thing that was prepared last week 'cause we were in a hurry. 51:36 And really, I want to start off by saying it's an honor to be the chair of the Allocation Committee. 51:40 It's the oversight of the Children's Levy, and it was really wonderful last week that we Thank you. 51:45 Thank you, Councilor Dan Ryan, for allowing ourselves to stay late. 51:47 I want to thank staff for that, and thank you, Councilor Smith, for advocacy for such civil— such civics and good manners. 51:57 Just real quick, all the levy grants are a result of a well-constructed funding process developed over 3 years with extensive community involvement. 52:06 This year's small grants process centered community voice. 52:09 For example, the levels— the levies, community council advisory boards scored applicant videos and made funding recommendations to the allocation committee. 52:18 Finally, the small grants and the 8% increase to the 94 grants will put resources into the community quickly and efficiently starting July 1st, hence the reason we have to vote on this today. 52:28 All grants directly serve children across the city, and we all know the need is great and we wish there was more. 52:34 Thanks again. 52:34 I want to add just one more thing. 52:36 We are going to have a conversation at the next meeting about always having an alternate with the small grants because sometimes one might go away and then we have someone in the queue that we were— that we thoroughly discussed. 52:47 So we'll be doing that the next meeting. 52:48 When is our next meeting?
52:53 Wonderful. 52:54 All right, thanks so much. 52:55 I hope you all can support this. 52:57 We can move on with the meeting. 52:58 Thanks.
52:58 Thank you, Councilor Ryan. 52:59 Councilor Zimmerman.
53:01 Um, thanks. 53:01 It's been a challenging couple of years in, in your realm, and I just want Give compliments. 53:07 I have watched how you've brought this to us last year, this year. 53:12 It makes sense to me. 53:12 It also seems quite responsive to what you're hearing on the ground and the changing dynamic for kids and families. 53:18 And so I just have a lot of appreciation there. 53:20 And I want to also, as our representative to that funding board, Councilor Ryan, I think that you are doing us a service in Commissioner Dan Saltzman's shadow in terms of of keeping this, keeping this council directly connected to this. 53:38 So I have a lot of appreciation, right, from his building up and working with the staff to build the program into what it is. 53:43 Um, uh, not an easy year to do what Portland has decided we want to do, and you have threaded that needle, and I think he would be proud as well. 53:53 So thank you.
53:54 Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. 53:57 Seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll?
54:00 Councilor Kanel? 54:06 Aye. 54:06 Aye.
54:07 No vote on this item.
54:11 Councilor Mitchell Green?
54:16 Councilor Samir Kanal?
54:21 Councilor Eric Zimmerman?
54:27 Aye. 54:28 Smith? 54:30 Absent.
54:34 And the ordinance passes with 11 aye, 1 absent.
54:38 Thank you all so much for being here.
54:39 Now you can show your enthusiasm.
54:41 Yay! 54:41 Yay! 54:43 Could we please call item 7?
54:49 It's the new item 6. 54:51 Item 6. 54:52 Thank you. 54:53 Item 6. 54:54 Authorize borrowings of not more than $95 million in anticipation of the Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund levy for FY 2026-27, document number 2026-155.
55:09 Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance. 55:11 Is there any further discussion of this item? 55:18 Seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll?
55:26 Aye. 55:27 Pirtle-Guiney?
55:44 Thank you. 55:45 Zimmerman?
55:52 The ordinance passes with 12 aye votes.
55:55 Thank you very much. 55:56 Can we now please call new item number 6 or 7? 56:00 I don't—.
56:00 I'm confused on my own.
56:01 You got it. 56:02 New item number 7, authorize conveyance of city-owned real property to Habitat for Humanity Portland Metro East for the construction of Thank you.
56:18 This is the first reading of an emergency ordinance. 56:20 With us from Council Ops is Claire Adamsick with a committee staff summary. 56:25 Take it away, Claire.
56:27 Thank you, Council President and councilors. 56:28 For the record, Claire Adamsick, Council Policy Analyst and staff to the Housing and Permitting Committee. 56:33 The emergency ordinance before you, document number 2026-151, was heard in the Housing and Permitting Committee on May 5th, where it was referred to full council with the recommendation to pass. 56:44 It authorizes the transfer of city-owned property near 6631 North Syracuse Street to Habitat for Humanity Portland Region for the construction of the True North project. 56:54 The project will include 50 family-sized units of 2 bedrooms or more, with 25 units available to households earning up to 60% median family income and 25 per 25 units available to households earning up to 80% MFI at initial sale. 57:09 The Portland Housing Bureau will require the project to record an affordable housing covenant on each home, ensuring affordability in perpetuity to households earning up to 80% MFI. 57:20 The emergency ordinance also authorizes the city administrator, in accordance with Portland City Code, to execute a disposition and development agreement and any other documents The ordinance includes an emergency clause in order to meet required project financing timelines. 57:38 The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and analysis and community impacts and community involvement. 57:45 No written or verbal testimony was provided on this item prior to committee action on May 5th. 57:50 And that concludes the committee staff summary. 57:51 Thank you.
57:52 Thank you very much, Claire. 57:54 Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, this came out of your committee. 57:56 Did you have any comments?
57:57 Oh, well, kind of your— I'm driving the wrong thing. 57:59 I apologize. 58:00 Councilor Avalos, please.
58:01 Thank you. 58:03 Yeah, I appreciated the opportunity to discuss this project at the Housing and Permitting Committee and hear more about the long-term vision for creating permanently affordable homeownership opportunities in our city. 58:14 This is a partnership with Habitat for Humanity Portland Region. 58:17 And right now with Portland being in a housing crisis, we need more pathways, not just into housing, but into stable, affordable homeownership for working families. 58:26 What stands out about the project is that all 50 units will be family-sized homes, which is something that we desperately need more of in Portland. 58:33 I also appreciate that these homes will be permanently affordable and prioritized through the North and Northeast Preference Policy to help address the historic displacement that Black families and communities experience in North and Northeast Portland. 58:44 This project reflects intentional community engagement with outreach directly to households impacted by displacement and prospective homeowners helping to shape the project design and priorities. 58:53 And lastly, I want to acknowledge the sustainability component of this project. 58:57 Building net-zero-ready homes that align with the city's renewable energy goals shows that we can advance both housing justice and climate justice together. 59:04 This is exactly the type of housing investment we should continue making— affordable family size, community informed, and focused on long-term stability for Portland families. 59:13 And it passed out of committee. 59:14 That's all.
59:15 Thank you, Councilor Avalos. 59:17 Colleagues, are there any technical or clarifying questions on this item? 59:20 Councilor Kanal.
59:21 Thank you. 59:21 I just was hoping, uh, someone could maybe— I'm not sure if it's Claire, if the co-sponsors could speak to the reason for it being an emergency ordinance.
59:29 We have staff in the room from the Housing Bureau as well who are coming up.
59:34 And why it was pulled.
59:36 And yeah, why it was pulled. 59:37 That's a good— thank you for that. 59:39 Um, a little confused there.
59:49 Okay. 59:49 Hi, Council. 59:50 Thank you for having us here today. 59:51 My name is Kara Hamilton. 59:53 I'm staff at the Portland Housing Bureau, and I work with Habitat Humanity on this project. 59:58 Um, part of the reason that this item was asked to be on the emergency ordinance is that we are planning to close financially on May 28th with our funding partners, OHCS, OnPoint Community Credit Union, and of course Habitat themselves. 1:00:13 And Habitat is positioned to start site development immediately after financial closing and is hoping to take advantage of the warm weather to avoid incurring significant costs if they start later in the season. 1:00:29 Additionally, PHB is currently managing a security contract with Northwest Enforcement that ends on June 30th. 1:00:36 If closing is pushed past the current target, PHB will likely need to solicit bids for a new contract. 1:00:43 Additionally, PHB has not budgeted for a security contract past June 30th, the end of the fiscal year, as closing has been planned for this date for some time. 1:00:52 I'm happy to answer any other questions.
1:00:59 Yeah, just why was it pulled off the consent agenda? 1:01:03 We were heard— we heard it was staff who pulled it.
1:01:05 Uh, it was not PHB staff.
1:01:10 Okay. 1:01:11 Was it pulled by staff or by public? 1:01:14 Do you know?
1:01:17 It was pulled by— thanks.
1:01:20 Hello there. 1:01:21 For the record, Eben Hoffer, staff to Councilor Dunphy. 1:01:26 DCA administrative staff had placed this on their run spreadsheet as a regular agenda item. 1:01:33 Somehow we got our wires crossed.
1:01:36 They asked me if we could pull it back to the regular agenda.
1:01:41 Okay, and this is DCA for Community and Economic Development? 1:01:47 That office? 1:01:47 Okay, that's okay. 1:01:50 Great, appreciate the— I think this one's on me mostly. 1:01:53 Appreciate the clarity there. 1:01:56 And I think, Yeah, I'll let others ask their questions. 1:02:01 Thanks.
1:02:01 Thank you, Councilor Kanal. 1:02:02 Councilor Smith?
1:02:03 Yes, are we going to get a presentation?
1:02:06 Just the staff summary report.
1:02:08 So there's a presentation on the, on the exhibit. 1:02:11 I, I don't sit on the committee, so I don't know anything about this.
1:02:15 Um, yes, there was a full presentation on May 5th, but we are happy to share the presentation if that would be helpful.
1:02:22 Where is the land located?
1:02:24 It's in the University Park neighborhood of North Portland.
1:02:27 University Park? 1:02:31 Okay. 1:02:32 And so we're—.
1:02:34 Peninsula Crossing Trail.
1:02:37 It was the Safe Restrooms there.
1:02:40 It was Peninsula Crossing Safe Restrooms.
1:02:41 Yeah, where the cut is, the bike trail there.
1:02:44 So are we putting out, um, bonds on this? 1:02:47 How, how is— are we actually giving money to this or just land?
1:02:52 Um, the item before you today is just to approve the disposition of the land. 1:02:56 The financing, uh, is approved by the city administrator, which we did, um, allocate Metro Housing Bond funds and Ecuria Interstate Urban Corridor— uh, Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal Area TIF funds as well.
1:03:12 So it was in— to the tune of $2 million?
1:03:15 Um, the Ecuria TIF funds were $2 million.
1:03:18 The Metro Bond funds were roughly So how much in all are we as the City of Portland putting forward on this?
1:03:25 Uh, roughly $8 million.
1:03:27 $8 Million plus the land?
1:03:30 And when was the hearing through the Housing Committee?
1:03:34 May 5th? 1:03:37 Okay, so that was about a week ago or so.
1:03:42 Okay, um, thank you for this. 1:03:45 And how many people is it going to serve?
1:03:49 So there are 50 units. 1:03:51 Um, they range from 2 to 4 bedrooms. 1:03:55 Um, Sarah, do you know how many, uh, households it's planned to serve? 1:04:08 Good afternoon, Council. 1:04:09 My name is Sarah Radcliffe. 1:04:10 I work with Habitat for Humanity. 1:04:12 Um, we anticipate that with 50 family-sized homes of 2, 3, and 4 bedrooms that approximately 191 people will call this development home.
1:04:25 Okay. 1:04:26 And did, did we do a SuperNOFA or something? 1:04:29 How did this come about? 1:04:30 How did they— did they contact us and ask us if we could help? 1:04:35 How did this whole relationship come up, come together?
1:04:39 Yes. 1:04:39 So PHB held a solicitation in 2022. 1:04:45 There were multiple sites and development financing available through the solicitation, and Habitat's proposal was selected as part of this NOFA.
1:04:55 Okay, and so we're just now getting to this? 1:04:57 It took us 4 years to do this?
1:04:59 Yeah, part of that is because there was a Safe Rest Village and the Belmont Goats located on the site, and their lease— not a lease, use agreement ended in June 2025. 1:05:12 We expected to close shortly after that. 1:05:15 Um, closing has been delayed due to negotiations of contracts, um, and permitting.
1:05:23 And so the previous council approved this? 1:05:26 It didn't go through us, is that what you're saying?
1:05:29 It hasn't gone through council before. 1:05:32 Financing is approved through the city administrator. 1:05:36 Um, the land is approved by city council.
1:05:39 Okay, okay. 1:05:40 I'm just trying to figure out how this process went and if there was a process.
1:05:45 Okay, thank you so much.
1:05:47 Thank you, Councilor Smith. 1:05:49 Councilor Ryan.
1:05:49 Yes, thank you, Council President. 1:05:51 I just wanted to provide a little bit more context than you provided, but I appreciate what you said and I enjoyed the questions from Councilor Smith. 1:05:58 This was an example where bureaus worked together and we had Parks, PBOT, PHB, and then the office that was trying to build Safe Rest Villages. 1:06:09 And so we actually saved some time and efficiency because when we built the villages, we did a lot of infrastructure work to set this up. 1:06:17 So when they left, you could quickly get in there and do your thing. 1:06:21 We also— for those that are from that part of town, it used to be there were unsanctioned camps that went all the way from Willamette down to Columbia Boulevard along the Peninsula Crossing Trail. 1:06:31 And for over a decade, I hear 12 to 13 years, the residents of University Park had no access for the most part to that family-friendly amenity that we built. 1:06:42 So when we put in the SafeRest Village, we made the whole neighborhood safer by clearing out the pathway, and then that started being used again by the neighbors. 1:06:51 And then the infrastructure work was done with PBOT, so after that was closed down, we could immediately start the building. 1:06:56 And I think we're all excited about the opportunity.
1:06:58 Opportunities for homeownership, the pathway to financial stability, and to the North and Northeast preference policy that was always a part of this journey as well. 1:07:07 So thank you, Housing Bureau, for seeing this through.
1:07:11 Thank you, Councilor Ryan. 1:07:13 Can we please move to public testimony?
1:07:17 We have one person signed up, Lacey Sutton.
1:07:22 Thank you guys for the presentation.
1:07:24 You can Hi, Lacey Sutton. 1:07:37 In 2020, in the middle of a pandemic, our 7-year-old daughter was diagnosed with a rare kidney disease that made her severely immune compromised. 1:07:47 It was the beginning of the hardest time of our lives, but Through it all, we held fast to our dream of owning a home, of giving our children safety and stability. 1:07:56 We were overjoyed to purchase a Habitat home, and that joy was robbed from us. 1:08:02 I've spent the past 2 and a half years fighting for basic code-required safety, for answers, time I should have been spending with my family enjoying the house we worked so hard for. 1:08:13 But I had kids sleeping on the third story.
1:08:16 On a dark, unmarked, dead-end road filled with cars, a road Habitat and the city used to insist was not a fire lane. 1:08:24 It took 2 and a half years of my life, hundreds of emails, complaints, testimony, investigations by the fire department, the ombudsman, the media, just to get a tacit admission that yes, we do in fact need fire access. 1:08:38 They painted some curbs and put in some signs.
1:08:41 But it's still not up to code and they still won't explain it. 1:08:45 Over these years, I have been surprised to learn that while things are particularly bad at Cherry Blossom, we are not alone. 1:08:53 Everywhere I go talking about this, people come up to me— homeowners, tradespeople, church leaders—.
1:08:59 And tell me they're familiar with Habitat's work.
1:09:02 Leaking roofs, black mold, bad wiring, wall heaters that are at best incredibly Expensive to run and at worst burst into flame. 1:09:10 One water meter, so struggling families can't get a discount from the water bureau. 1:09:14 That's going to get a lot harder. 1:09:16 Homeowners in foreclosure for unpaid HOA dues. 1:09:20 This low-income housing model is an experiment and it is failing. 1:09:25 And we don't— we can't move because permanent affordability with capped equity and silent second mortgages and DPAL, you have to pay back is not how you build wealth.
1:09:34 We're stuck. 1:09:36 So why don't you hear about this?
1:09:38 Maybe for the same reason the ombudsman rewrote their findings after a chat with Steve Massanetti. 1:09:45 Or how about that time back in 2019 when the fire plant examiner identified significant violations in the plans and was ordered to just approve it the day before Habitat's deadline? 1:09:57 There's a term for that. 1:09:59 Dereliction of duty. 1:10:01 But without enforcement, those are just words.
1:10:04 Habitat for Humanity is a powerful organization with money and lawyers and friends in high places, and we have sick kids and several jobs and bills and homes that are falling apart and fears of retaliation and indifference that are totally founded.
1:10:24 Several of you have asked me what you could do for us. 1:10:28 Well, here you go. 1:10:30 Habitat wants something from you. 1:10:32 Seems to me like this would be the perfect time to ask them some hard questions, make some demands, condition your approval on answers, repairs, accountability. 1:10:43 It's the only way we're going to get any. 1:10:47 Thank you.
1:10:48 Thank you so much.
1:10:50 That completes testimony.
1:10:52 Okay, colleagues, is there further discussion of this item? 1:10:57 Councilor Kanal.
1:10:59 Thank you. 1:11:00 Um, so first off, I want to acknowledge what, what we're talking about here, um, in the testimony and say that we have a necessity to ensure that things that are built are up to code. 1:11:17 I've been looking into this off and on. 1:11:18 I know it's not in our district, but I do think that there's— it's a worthwhile conversation for us to have about that location. 1:11:25 I think it's up to this council whether or not that affects the question about this particular ordinance. 1:11:31 I just want to acknowledge that first. 1:11:34 I appreciate Councilor Avalos, Chair Avalos, bringing up the context of the size of the units.
1:11:42 This ordinance relates to a property that is in our district. 1:11:46 One of the challenges that we're facing, and my colleague Councilor Ryan talks a lot about declining enrollment in PPS schools, and part of the reason for that is we don't have affordable units in which people can have a family, have children in. 1:12:02 And so I am grateful that that is a part of the plan and that is the focus of this particular plan. 1:12:08 I'm also grateful that there is Inclusion in the North Northeast Preference Policy. 1:12:13 I could repeat pretty much everything that you said, Chair Avalos, and I won't, but I did wanna just shout that out. 1:12:18 I also wanted to note that I believe all 3 of us from D2 toured that facility together back when it was a Safe Rest Village. 1:12:28 And this has been on the radar for a while. 1:12:32 This particular plan has been effectively in the works with relation to transferring the property because it was originally purchased, if I recall correctly, for affordable housing development when it was transferred. 1:12:44 So that to me is a core part of what we're doing here is we're effectively finishing something that was already put into effect. 1:12:53 But I just wanted to get that all on the record. 1:12:57 I'm not sure how others would like to approach this in light of other things, but I wanted to at least get that on the record. 1:13:02 Thanks.
1:13:02 Thank you, Councilor Kanal. 1:13:04 Councilor Green.
1:13:06 Yeah, I just wanted to say briefly, one of the, One of the issues that we discussed in the committee was that this is an example, a prototype example of the impact of land banking. 1:13:19 You know, this was a sort of not part of a systematic strategy per se, but it was a one-off opportunity that the Portland Housing Bureau saw to secure land at a price that it knew would become more dear over time. 1:13:32 And the result of that was that we were able to build a number of units that are family-sized Yes. 1:13:36 — At a cost that pencils out for these families. 1:13:41 And so I made the point that I said, you know, to the extent that the social housing study is looking at land banking as part of a broader framework, to the extent that Unified Housing Strategy is looking at land banking as part of a broader framework, we don't need to wait to start looking at those opportunities to pilot something in the future when we already have a pilot here. 1:14:02 And so I just wanted to make sure we use the lessons of this as evidence when we, when we write that report, um, and just recognize that, um, that it can have good impacts. 1:14:13 Um, obviously, you know, there's, there's accountability and, you know, code enforcement issues notwithstanding.
1:14:23 Thank you, Councilor Green. 1:14:24 Councilor Smith.
1:14:26 Thank you, Council President. 1:14:27 Is this the $8 million that's being used to, um, fund this project?
1:14:33 Is this coming out of the '25-'26 Anybody from Housing Bureau available to answer that?
1:14:44 And also, I wanted to know, was this project budgeted in this last budget, if it was put in the budget?
1:14:56 Um, thank you, Councilor Smith. 1:14:57 Uh, it's expected in the FY 2026-2027 budget. 1:15:02 Um, we expect the first allocation of funds to be in June or, uh, in July of 2026. 1:15:07 '26 This year, and it was included in the 5-year forecast, so it should have been in all of the budgets you've seen.
1:15:15 Okay. 1:15:16 No, I was just trying to figure out if it was in the budget. 1:15:19 What I'm concerned about is that we're approving monies to do monies before our actual budget is done. 1:15:25 If it was for '25-'26, I could understand this, but we have not— we're not in the '26-'27 budget year, so why are we approving this now? 1:15:37 What if that budget doesn't go? 1:15:39 I see the DCA here.
1:15:44 Thanks, Tim. 1:15:45 Great job. 1:15:46 Donny Oliveira, for the record, Deputy City Administrator of Community and Economic Development. 1:15:50 Councilor, thank you for the question. 1:15:52 So anytime we're talking about something as complex as a housing development deal, it takes place over several years. 1:16:00 So when the team goes to do their underwriting with a project, any given project, we have to look at it over time. 1:16:09 At the same time, our development partners, in this case Habitat for Humanity, needs to have some level of certainty that the resources, in this case bond dollars, are going to be available to complete the project. 1:16:21 So the reality is for any housing production is there is going to happen over several— 10 years.
1:16:29 Budget cycles. 1:16:31 So, well, it depends on what we do with the '26-'27 budget, and I have a problem with approving stuff before its time. 1:16:39 If it was about '25-'26— and again, here we go, we're going out of order again because this is not an emergency that has to be approved today. 1:16:49 They know we're good for the money. 1:16:51 They understand that we do have a budget, but to have this approved now It does not, it does not math for me because what if we decide to, to choose some other routes to fill that $171 million gap?
1:17:06 Councilor, that's a fair question. 1:17:08 You— 2 things are why this is pressing. 1:17:11 Uh, staff did relay the, the sequence of events that have to happen before the end of the fiscal year, including a burden that we put on the Housing Bureau for, in this case, security costs in the next fiscal year if we didn't land this deal. 1:17:22 The second thing, there are other funders, um, that we're partnering with that are, are ready for our final piece to complete the capital stack. 1:17:30 So we're putting several partners, you know, at risk here.
1:17:35 What, what partners are you putting at risk? 1:17:37 I, I, I don't see what partners you're going to put at risk.
1:17:39 Uh, it's Oregon Housing and Community Services, so the state funding organization, and OnPoint Community Credit Union. 1:17:46 Um, also just adding that the funds are Metro Housing bond dollars and, um, TIF dollars, so they have to be used for specific purposes.
1:17:55 So that's what I'm saying. 1:17:56 We must be using '25-'26. 1:17:59 How can we commit in this ordinance '26-'27 if we don't have it? 1:18:05 Because we don't even know what we're going to get. 1:18:07 This must be old money because we don't have any more of that money anymore. 1:18:10 It goes through the county.
1:18:13 Councilor, um, when bond dollars are released, in this case Metro bond dollars, those are revenues that are are predictable in the sense that we know what they are. 1:18:21 And so they're programmed out over time.
1:18:23 So it's not like they're a new revenue that we collect every year. 1:18:26 They're essentially sitting in our coffers to be spent. 1:18:29 In the case of both of the bonds, both housing dollars and, or Portland Housing Dollars and Metro Dollars, these are the ends of the resources that have been committed over many years ago. 1:18:38 These are the final products of those investments. 1:18:40 So these are basically the final dispersals of those resources.
1:18:44 So again, are we dispersing 26-27 or 25-26? 1:18:49 Because I don't, I don't see the emergency right now, um, City Administrator. 1:18:55 I, I, I, I just don't. 1:18:56 I don't understand. 1:18:58 It doesn't math for me.
1:19:00 Councilor, I thought staff did an adequate job of explaining the emergency.
1:19:12 I don't know. 1:19:12 I don't, I don't get it. 1:19:14 I don't understand it. 1:19:14 I don't understand the capital stack on it. 1:19:16 I don't understand why we're doing it now and not a month from now, because you already said they know that you're going to do the bonds. 1:19:25 They come at a certain time, so they know you're good for the money.
1:19:28 Councilor, the action today is to, to disburse the land to Habitat so they can take action, right? 1:19:33 That's what's happening today. 1:19:34 So we're asking for council's approval of the transition of the property from the city to Habitat. 1:19:40 That is the functional action that's happening No, but I asked about the money.
1:19:43 I had asked about the $8 million. 1:19:45 That's what I was concerned about.
1:19:47 But this, but this is, this is already giving us a direction to take $8 million before our budget is approved, to take that $8 million before the budget is approved. 1:20:00 It's, it's requiring us to do that. 1:20:02 Can we do that? 1:20:03 I mean, where's the legal counsel?
1:20:04 Counselor, I don't, I don't see anything in here that says we are transferring cash. 1:20:08 This looks like it's No, no, no.
1:20:09 But, but what it's saying in the document is that we're going to spend $8 million in '26-'27. 1:20:16 And so we're doing an ordinance in '25-'26 that it's, it's mixing 2. 1:20:24 And so we have to do one before we do the other. 1:20:27 We have to approve a budget before you can agree to take '26-'27. 1:20:37 You cannot take money from another budget year without approving it first.
1:20:40 But I don't— we're not approving money here in this.
1:20:43 No, but in the ordinance, he said that it was going to be $8 million that we spend towards it. 1:20:48 And so maybe I'm getting this confused. 1:20:50 I didn't go to the— I don't sit on the committee.
1:20:52 Councilor, I was just trying to respond to your question. 1:20:54 Today's action is just about the land.
1:20:56 Just right. 1:20:57 But I asked you the question, are we putting any cash towards this? 1:21:01 And you said $8 million. 1:21:02 And I said, what year is it coming out of? 1:21:04 You said '26-'27. 1:21:07 And so if this is referring that we're, we're doing an action right now, what if we don't approve the budget for '26-'27? 1:21:14 Where are you going to get that $8 million from? 1:21:17 That's all I'm saying. 1:21:18 I'm just trying to say order. 1:21:20 We're not doing things in order.
1:21:22 And I think we will— yes, I heard.
1:21:25 And that's why I'm asking legal counsel I think—.
1:21:33 Oh, go ahead, Adrienne. 1:21:36 The answer is the action doesn't implicate the budget technically because it doesn't attempt to allocate or appropriate funds from the '26-'27 budget. 1:21:51 It technically just transfers land. 1:21:53 It's a fair question of whether or not the city should be What if we do this and council decides not to appropriate?
1:21:58 I'm just responding to what he said. 1:22:00 He said his partners need to know that we're good for the money. 1:22:06 But today is not about the money. 1:22:08 You said it's about the land. 1:22:10 So what about this particular ordinance is going to give them some security that we're going to actually be able to bond that for '26-'27 if we haven't passed it? 1:22:22 That's what I'm— that's what I'm trying to say. 1:22:24 We're out of order.
1:22:29 Any further response, team?
1:22:33 I don't have a problem with it. 1:22:34 I like the project. 1:22:35 I think we need to do it. 1:22:36 But I'm just saying that when we're doing the money, we did the same thing last year. 1:22:39 We approved a budget with the hopes that we were going to get $15 million from the governor, and we didn't, and it messed our budget up, and we had to go and and do a TAL to correct it. 1:22:49 I don't want to have to go and do something different to correct something that we did wrong in the wrong fiscal year.
1:22:56 Right. 1:22:56 So I think to be really clear, a transfer of land does not have a budget implication in the way of like what your budget looks like.
1:23:05 So we're not saying to the partners that, oh, we just buying the land. 1:23:10 It doesn't mean that we're not going to give you the $8 million. 1:23:12 So are we— Are we signaling we're going to give you the $8 million in some kind of way? 1:23:18 Does this give them more confidence if we pass this today? 1:23:22 Does this give them more confidence that we're going to actually give them the $8 million?
1:23:28 Councilor, I believe that confidence is built on years of working together to get things done.
1:23:32 That's what I'm talking about. 1:23:34 That's all I'm saying. 1:23:36 I think we have a relationship. 1:23:39 So the emergency, the urgency is not the urgency that you're saying that it is today. 1:23:45 That's all I'm saying. 1:23:48 We're not passing any money.
1:23:52 Okay, thank you, Councilor. 1:23:55 Um, we are well over time right now, folks. 1:23:58 We are half an hour over on our calendar already.
1:24:02 Um, I like the project, um, DCA Oliveira. 1:24:08 I think it's a great project and it is going to The end user are the people who I'm concerned about, and I think that it's gonna serve us well. 1:24:15 But in terms of process, every time we make a mistake, and I'm really concerned as it relates to the Portland Housing Bureau because we get— we play fast and loose with certain things. 1:24:27 We found $106 million that we didn't have. 1:24:31 Yes, sir. 1:24:31 Yes, I'm gonna always bring that up.
1:24:34 This is for the city.
1:24:36 So when you do things out of order in my, in my world, I'm going to ask you about it.
1:24:48 Okay, thank you, Councilor. 1:24:50 Councilor Zimmerman.
1:24:54 Thanks. 1:24:54 To just to get the heart of this point, let's say that the budget aspect does not get approved. 1:25:00 When we give land away to an organization for an intent that they develop it. 1:25:06 Do we have a deed restriction or some sort of covenant that says if they fail, fall on their face, cease to be an organization in the next X number of months or years, that we get the land back?
1:25:17 Yes, we'll be executing a disposition and development agreement that has a reversionary interest clause on it.
1:25:24 Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. 1:25:26 Councilor Morillo— oh, never mind.
1:25:29 Can we— let's see, seeing no one else in the queue, can we please— this is an emergency ordinance. 1:25:36 Oh, I'm sorry, is there— we already get testimony? 1:25:39 Yeah, can we please move to a roll call vote? 1:25:41 And colleagues, reminder, this is emergency ordinance, it requires 9 votes to pass.
1:25:52 Indicating an intent here to do significant oversight on This, uh, project and, and a request from everybody, Fire Bureau as well actually, uh, to, to keep council looped in on any approval of any permits related to this project. 1:26:06 Um, aye.
1:26:12 True family-sized units, a real choice for homeownership for more families, and a land banking success. 1:26:19 I am proud to co-sponsor and happy to vote aye.
1:26:23 Yeah, happy to see this back. 1:26:25 Aye.
1:26:26 Aye. 1:26:29 I appreciate your line of questioning, Councilor Smith. 1:26:31 Um, I think that there are things we need to look at and make sure we're doing it in the right order, and I think I feel satisfied by Councilor Zimmerman's answer to those questions, but I just wanted to affirm that. 1:26:40 So I vote aye knowing that we can do oversight later.
1:26:54 The ordinance passes with 12 aye votes.
1:26:58 Thank you very much. 1:26:58 Can we please move to item— the next item. 1:27:04 I don't know what number it is anymore.
1:27:08 Thank you. 1:27:08 There we go.
1:27:10 Add identification of law enforcement officers Code to prohibit facial covering, require badge visibility, and require identity verification for individuals conducting law enforcement activities. 1:27:22 Add Code Chapter 23.30, document number 2026-111.
1:27:28 Colleagues, this is the continued first reading of a non-emergency ordinance. 1:27:33 When we left off, Councilor Murillo had moved all of Councilor Novick's first generation of amendments as a package, and Councilor Avalos had seconded it. 1:27:41 All of these amendments are out of date, but while it is still active, we have one amendment from Kanal and one from Novick. 1:27:50 Councilor Morillo, would you be willing to withdraw your motion so we can get—.
1:27:54 So happy to withdraw.
1:27:56 Thank you. 1:27:56 There we go. 1:27:57 So now I'm turning it over to Councilor Kanal. 1:28:01 Is that right?
1:28:02 Yeah, can I just ask a clarifying question on what you just said as my policy advisor Jack Jaden's gonna be sharing the screen here, but can I just ask a clarifying— which amendments are still in the universe right now? 1:28:16 Is it Novick 7 and Pirtle-Guiney Canal 1?
1:28:18 That is my understanding.
1:28:21 Actually, I'm withdrawing Novick 7. 1:28:23 I'm proposing amendments 1 and 2 to Canal Pirtle-Guiney 1.
1:28:28 Okay, okay, thank you for clarifying that. 1:28:30 So I will, I guess, first just for the record, move Pirtle-Guiney Canal 1 as an amendment, and then I'll, I'll, I have— I'll explain it. 1:28:40 Um, but just wanted to, to move that, and, uh, hopefully she's still connected and can second it.
1:28:54 Thank you very much. 1:28:55 So, uh, just a real quick— we got a request, uh, in the last session. 1:29:00 There were several, uh, Thank you. 1:29:02 I'm not going to go through, explain the whole thing again, and I don't want to take up time on things we've already talked about, but I did want to just do a quick side-by-side comparison here of what is being done. 1:29:14 And this is referring to in the amendment what would be done. 1:29:19 So I think the screen share is up, but the same underlying legislative intent exists. 1:29:27 We have masked people which are taking and detaining folks with no license plates, unmarked cars, things like that. 1:29:35 And it is unclear and unable to be immediately determined if people are imposters or not. 1:29:41 And there is still an underlying need to build the public trust. 1:29:46 The ordinance seeks still to create, and this is the legislative intent once again for the record, the right to know for the public as well as the city government that a person claiming to be law enforcement actually is and is not an imposter, that there is transparency and accountability for all law enforcement, not just Portland Police operating in Portland, and that there's enough information being collected that there's a record of what's going on so someone can file a complaint or, you know, follow up in the event of a feeling that wrongdoing has occurred. 1:30:15 So I won't go back over this next slide. 1:30:17 I'll just show it for a second here of what it does. 1:30:20 Visible identification, preliminary investigations, and documentation here. 1:30:25 But I did want to go to these last just 3 quick things: the overlap, the differences, and the differences relative to the state and California law. 1:30:36 So for those who again may have forgotten, we are required by state law to create a policy that relates to masking and identification.
1:30:46 This goes further than that, and that's the right column here. 1:30:48 But the left column is what we are required to do. 1:30:50 We are fulfilling that obligation. 1:30:53 We are complying with the masking piece exactly as the state requires it. 1:30:59 With the identification piece, we are— you can see Section 1 there on the left that you're allowed to adopt more stringent requirements. 1:31:05 And so we're showing that on the next slide. 1:31:08 And then we copied and pasted from the state law the definitions of these sorts of terms. 1:31:13 And then the right side of this slide shows that there's a— oh, that's the mass identification. 1:31:20 I already talked about that. 1:31:22 Next slide, please. 1:31:22 The differences is that we add in this piece of potential imposter investigations and then documentation of how it was known that that authority was present for someone claiming law enforcement authority without any immediate way to know that for Sure. 1:31:39 So basically what happens when it's looked into. 1:31:42 And then just getting to the, the last slide here, because the California law has been asked several times, there are differences in how our ordinance compares to the California law. 1:31:55 Our ordinance focuses pretty significantly on imposters, as the second point says, but it is also that we are looking more at the Chicago model than the California model as it relates to mass And identification in terms of being able to seek injunctive relief from a court. 1:32:10 And I want to thank Councilor Novick for bringing that issue up more clearly. 1:32:14 So, and that's a topic that's not in Oregon state law or in California. 1:32:18 I just wanted to get this on the record for legislative intent because there's been a lot of questions. 1:32:22 So now that we've moved the amendment and it has been seconded, I'd love to get into the conversation and I'll stop here.
1:32:30 Thank you, Councilor. 1:32:32 So colleagues, we are in an amendment. 1:32:37 We have an amendment before us that's been moved and seconded. 1:32:40 Councilor Novick.
1:32:42 Thank you, Mr. President. 1:32:44 First of all, I want to thank Councilor Kanal and his staff and Councilor Pirtle-Guiney over the past few days. 1:32:50 We've been— I've been bombarding them with questions, suggested additions, suggested deletions, and we've made a lot of progress over the last few weeks, and I really appreciate that. 1:33:02 There's 2 amendments that I want to offer. 1:33:06 One is, I originally thought, and I still think, that we should not be in the position of— I mean, I don't think that we need to tell PPB how internally to comply with this law or the state law. 1:33:19 I don't think PPB has a history of over-masking or under-identifying, but I'm willing to go along with having some element of that. 1:33:29 But one thing that concerns me is that Councilmember Herbold. 1:33:30 The one that concerns me is that the requirement for documentation and approval of certain exemptions, in particular the one for working in extreme or severely inclement weather, including freezing temperatures, high wind, highly dusty conditions. 1:33:44 And there's a requirement if that exemption is invoked that the operational necessity must be documented, a listing of the assigned duties or deployment at the time of the exception. 1:33:57 The specific rationale for the exception, the name and rank of the supervising PPV officer who authorized the exception. 1:34:03 And what that raises for me is a prospect of it's a really cold day and 200 patrol officers call their sergeant and say, hey, Sarge, I'm— it's really cold, I'm wrapping my scarf around the bottom of my face. 1:34:19 And that just strikes me as overkill. 1:34:21 So one of my amendments would Just delete the reference to the severe weather exemption from those— from that requirement. 1:34:33 The second amendment that I'm proposing is that in the section which talks about incident reports of encounters with alleged law enforcement officers, I'd like to add something to the incident report requirement, which is that—.
1:34:53 Even if the PPB officer determines finally that the person purporting to be law enforcement is law enforcement, I want to document instances of possible violations of the identification and masking requirements. 1:35:07 So my amendment would say that if, if the PPB officer observed that the person in question was wearing a mask or was not wearing a badge, Or was not wearing either a permanent identifying number or a name tag. 1:35:21 Oh, sorry, typo here. 1:35:22 It says of a name tag, meant or. 1:35:24 The report shall include that information. 1:35:27 And the purpose of that is that we should be gathering information about potential violations of the law that then we could invoke if we attempt to enforce the law through a lawsuit. 1:35:40 So I move to approve.
1:35:44 Novick 1 to Kanal-Pirtle-Guiney 1, and I move Novick 2 to Kanal-Pirtle-Guiney 1.
1:35:50 Councilor Novick has moved Novick 1 and Novick 2. 1:35:54 Is there a second?
1:35:55 Can I second one of them?
1:35:57 Absolutely. 1:35:58 Sure.
1:35:59 I'm happy to second Novick 2.
1:36:01 Okay. 1:36:02 Councilor Kanal seconds Novick number 2. 1:36:05 Is there a second on Novick 1? 1:36:11 Not hearing one.
1:36:13 And I can speak to both in the same if that's helpful when we get to—.
1:36:18 So colleagues, we are now to— yeah, Councilor, it seems as though we do not have a second for your other amendment. 1:36:24 Colleagues, we are now in discussion on Novick 2. 1:36:31 Councilor Zimmerman to the amendment.
1:36:36 Why are we in discussion of Novick 2 if we— if it is only to Pirtle-Guiney Canal 1? 1:36:40 Shouldn't we take up Pirtle-Guiney Canal 1? 1:36:42 I thought that's what we were discussing before he makes his amendment to a thing that doesn't exist yet.
1:36:46 Is that how it works?
1:36:47 I guess I'm just trying to understand.
1:36:48 Yeah, that's fair. 1:36:51 I thought we debate the amendment.
1:36:53 You're amending just their amendment, not—.
1:36:55 Okay, I'll hold because I just— my question to you, Councilor, you were talking a little bit about the California thing. 1:36:59 I want to get back into that. 1:37:00 So I'm going to hold no comments on this.
1:37:02 We will come back to that. 1:37:03 Yes, Councilor Murillo, to the— to Novick 1 or Novick 2?
1:37:11 I'm going to put my hand back down.
1:37:12 Gotcha. 1:37:13 Councilor Kanal?
1:37:15 Yeah, I'm happy to, to speak to this because this is both about, um, documentation in 2 different parts. 1:37:21 One is in the context of incident reporting, and that's the one that I seconded. 1:37:25 Um, I think it's helpful to have more information, um, Wherever we can all agree that that is not an administrative burden and we all agree it's a good idea. 1:37:34 So I see no concern with that and I'm happy to support it. 1:37:39 I haven't heard any negativity towards it. 1:37:41 Obviously we're all just hearing it, but if there was, I'd be open to that, but I don't immediately see any sort of issue with it. 1:37:47 So I just wanted to second it and thank Councilor Novick for the continued, you know, looking into it and seeing where it can be improved.
1:37:55 Thank you, Councilor Knoll. 1:37:58 Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue— Councilor Morillo.
1:38:02 Am I allowed to ask Councilor Novick, 'cause I like this amendment, I think it's good. 1:38:07 Are you— does this satisfy your concerns about the policy? 1:38:10 Will you be able to vote in favor of it if this is approved?
1:38:16 Councilor, you're asking me to like spoil the fun. 1:38:23 I have a couple of clarifying questions to ask. 1:38:25 I am disappointed that nobody, nobody seconded Novick 1, so I'm gulping over that a little bit. 1:38:33 But you'll notice that I did not move my separate comprehensive amendment, so you can maybe infer that I'm kind of getting there.
1:38:42 That's so unhelpful. 1:38:45 Okay, that's as far as we go, I guess.
1:38:47 Thank you, Councilor Murillo. 1:38:48 Councilor Zimmerman.
1:38:51 Thanks, Councilor Novick. 1:38:52 I'm reading it. 1:38:53 Your amendment says in line 232 after agency, so—.
1:39:02 Okay, and to the Pirtle-Guiney-Kanal amendment that I'm holding, line 232 is about body-worn cameras.
1:39:12 Maybe I'm looking at it either a too later or a Maybe I'm looking at the wrong—.
1:39:18 Oh, what am I getting wrong here?
1:39:19 That I had this morning.
1:39:25 Taking it out of the context of lines, this is under 23.30.060 incident reports, A1. 1:39:34 So it would add to the end of A1 after and agency. 1:39:38 The report will also include blah, blah, blah. 1:39:41 So it'd be the end of A1.
1:39:43 Okay, thank you. 1:39:44 So got it.
1:39:51 Thank you, Councilor. 1:39:54 Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue for debate, can we please call the roll on Novick 2?
1:40:05 Novick 2. 1:40:07 To Canal EPG 1?
1:40:10 Correct. 1:40:10 Okay, Canal?
1:40:21 No. 1:40:21 Koyama Lane?
1:40:44 And the amendment is approved with 8 aye, 4 nay.
1:40:48 Okay, the amendment has been approved— has been amended to the underlying amendment to Kanal Pirtle-Guiney. 1:40:56 Councilors, discussion? 1:40:59 Councilor Novick.
1:41:02 Councilor Kanal, I do want to hear your answer to the question about why isn't there a— doesn't it seem kind of goofy to require 200 patrol officers to call up and say, hey, Sarge, it's cold, I'm wrapping the scarf around the bottom of my face?
1:41:21 Yeah, so I want to look at, and this is 233030, Section E-2. 1:41:32 In— it's in my, um, version, it's in the lines 145 to 151 area. 1:41:38 That's what we're talking about here.
1:41:39 Um, so there's a change in the, um— this is something similar to something that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney brought up, uh, about this. 1:41:47 And so you'll, you'll notice the words on a per-PPB officer basis So I think my— I think that we addressed the underlying concern that you're trying to solve already in the underlying amendment by removing that so that there does not need to be 200 calls, but any supervisor who's able to, you know, do so can just say it was 20 degrees outside, we exempted for that particular purpose.
1:42:17 Thank you. 1:42:17 Yes.
1:42:18 And so I believe that that covers it and addresses it sufficiently. 1:42:24 I'll also note that having no documentation would be challenging because at the request of PSSA, the— at least indirect request— the part that defines extreme weather has been removed. 1:42:41 So in order to know that it was 20 degrees, You do need something there, but I think that removing the per-officer basis allows it to be one report instead of 200 if there are 200 officers on duty.
1:42:52 Thank you for clarifying that. 1:42:54 So when it says the name and rank of the supervising PPE officer who authorized the exception, you could have a captain or somebody say, hey, you guys, I know it's cold out there, I authorize you to protect your faces from the cold.
1:43:07 That is a legislative intent, yes.
1:43:08 Okay, thank you. 1:43:09 Thank you. 1:43:10 The only other question I have is where it talks about the 23-30-050A says the section applies when a person of ambiguous authority is engaged in conduct that would be unlawful for a civilian, and ambiguous authority is not defined. 1:43:33 I just want to be clear. 1:43:36 If a PPB officer shows up on a scene and a reported law enforcement officer is wearing a badge, is not wearing— is wearing a badge and is wearing either a unique identifying number or a name tag, are you assuming that the PPB officer can decide right then and there, okay, this is not ambiguous authority, this is real authority?
1:44:01 So let's just step back for a second. 1:44:05 I'm gonna answer your question. 1:44:06 I do wanna note, I think you might have an old version that got updated to lacking immediate proof of authority. 1:44:12 Proof of authority is defined up above. 1:44:15 So just clarifying that, I'll make sure you have the right copy just in case. 1:44:20 But to answer your direct question, if a PPB officer shows up in a scene, on a scene, and a reported law enforcement officer or potential imposter is wearing is not— is wearing a badge and wearing either a unique identifier or a name tag. 1:44:36 So that to me constitutes proof of authority under this context, given what is written above. 1:44:44 It meets— oh boy, it meets the— sorry, it meets the definition above as I understand it. 1:44:51 I'm just gonna let Jack speak more to that if there's anything you wanted to add. 1:44:54 Sorry if I—.
1:44:56 Jack Jaden, she/they pronouns for the record, Senior Policy Advisor for Councilor Kanal.
1:45:01 I was passing out printed copies of the most recent version, and it sounds like you'd like me to explain the—.
1:45:08 Councilor Novick, can you explain your hypothetical one more time?
1:45:12 What page are we on?
1:45:16 Page 6, 23A. 1:45:22 3050, Part A, scope, the first sentence. 1:45:29 This section applies when a person lacking immediate proof of authority. 1:45:34 And Councilor Nowak, can you repeat it for—.
1:45:37 Yeah, thanks, Councilor. 1:45:39 Thanks, Jack. 1:45:40 My question is, would the state-required identification, which we're also requiring it, would, if the person is wearing a badge and either a unique identifier or a name tag, does that qualify as immediate proof of authority?
1:45:58 So I would point to line 33, proof of authority.
1:46:02 And so if it was lacking what is in there, that's where they would defer to. 1:46:09 The previous version was a bit more vague Ambiguous, as the word suggests. 1:46:16 And so we, through some helpful partners, better defined it in a way that is already spelled out.
1:46:27 Okay, but proof of— the definition of proof authority says the indicia set forth below are illustrative and not exhaustive. 1:46:35 And I don't think you could possibly be requiring that all of these be present. 1:46:39 I'm just asking as a statement of legislative intent, is having the unique identifier or name tag and the badge enough to constitute immediate proof of authority?
1:46:50 If they're lacking anything, then that is enough to constitute this scope.
1:46:57 Okay, so if they are— if they don't have a judicial warrant, then they don't meet the—.
1:47:02 No, no, no, sorry, you are correct. 1:47:05 That it is not at all a comprehensive list. 1:47:09 It's not a checklist. 1:47:10 You do not have to do it as it says. 1:47:11 It's illustrative.
1:47:15 My legislative intent, to answer your direct question about that, is that in that scenario, that is, you know, if someone's got a uniform with a badge, a name tag, and I believe you also said a number.
1:47:27 A name tag, yeah. 1:47:29 Well, either a name tag or a number.
1:47:31 Thank you for clarifying that because we did change the and to an or for clarity there in the other section. 1:47:36 But yes, that would be sufficient to, to, um, constitute, uh, the, the, sorry, the preliminary investigation would not need to occur.
1:47:47 Okay. 1:47:48 Now, I'm sorry, you said a uniform, and actually there are law enforcement agencies that don't traditionally wear uniforms. 1:47:54 Um, so even if they don't wear a uniform, if they're wearing the, uh, the badge and identifying number or name tag, is that okay?
1:48:02 You're not requiring agencies that don't have uniforms to have Generally speaking, we're not seeing people wearing a badge on a not uniform.
1:48:10 Well, my understanding, my understanding is that ICE normally doesn't wear uniforms.
1:48:15 Sure. 1:48:15 So, but the same point I just made still applies.
1:48:22 Can I jump in on part of the answer here?
1:48:26 I want to point out that one of the changes in Pirtle-Guiney Canal 1 In, um, on the line notation, it's line 115. 1:48:37 It's 2330.030. 1:48:40 The words in uniform are removed. 1:48:44 Um, so we are not setting a precedent anywhere in the language here about a uniform being part of the requirement for complying with the rest of the code. 1:48:55 Um, I'll also just note, I think Councilor Kanal gave a good technical answer, but that list you were referring to is an or list, not an and list. 1:49:08 So as you're looking at that, what it's saying is this thing could show you, this other thing could show you, or this other thing could show you, or it could be something else not listed here altogether. 1:49:20 There's no intent from my end, at least, for that to be a list where more than one thing needs to be met to comply.
1:49:30 Thank you. 1:49:31 And—.
1:49:31 Mr. President, can we just have a— I'm sorry, Councilor.
1:49:34 Point of information. 1:49:35 Councilor Kanal, your staff members handed out something to us, and you guys are going back and forth on the word and and or, but that's in a different place. 1:49:46 But we were talking about proof of authority, a uniform and a visibly displaying badge, and Agency identification. 1:49:55 Do we have the wrong document? 1:49:56 As you said, maybe Councilor Novick did, or are we all working from the same sheet of music? 1:50:00 And quite literally, are we working from the same sheet of music here?
1:50:03 And I apologize for interrupting. 1:50:05 I just don't know what you referenced when Councilor Elana Pirtle-Guiney is saying or, but the document you just handed us says and.
1:50:12 Yeah, so let me, those are 2 different questions and it's not immediately obvious. 1:50:19 The and and or is in line 117 on page 4. 1:50:24 And it, um, it's also 116 and 117 were both just referenced. 1:50:29 116 Is where the in uniform was removed, and that's also where the and/or was changed. 1:50:33 To answer your first question, proof of authority is in line 33 on page 2, and it has that it is— shall be established by at least one, uh, indicia of authority. 1:50:49 So that means that There is some sort of thing that shows that a person has authority and they have an illustrative list in the definition down below. 1:50:59 And I can speak more detail if there's a specific question.
1:51:03 I think I see it now. 1:51:04 My point of information was corrected. 1:51:05 I'll ask you a substantive question about that later.
1:51:08 Thank you, Councilor Novick. 1:51:08 Sorry.
1:51:11 Can I, may I just for the record, and this might help Thank you. 1:51:15 Just to help folks following along and, um, and council, there, there is a Pirtle-Guiney Canal Amendment 1 that's posted online with this item. 1:51:26 There have been changes to that. 1:51:29 Those changes were passed out to members of the council. 1:51:33 So, so the document you are looking at at council is not at the moment the one that's posted online.
1:51:40 The clerk, I believe, has it, is working to post the current version online as soon as possible.
1:51:50 Thank you. 1:51:50 Okay, okay. 1:51:52 Councilor Novick, are you done?
1:51:55 I've signed back in to talk about something else, so I'm done with this round. 1:51:58 Yes.
1:51:58 Okay, thank you. 1:51:59 Councilor Green.
1:52:01 Yeah, just briefly, I wanted to put my hand up, uh, to the earlier question. 1:52:05 Um, you know, I had always interpreted I think I was thinking of the sort of inclement weather exemption as being a thing that once it's codified in law that you would need to do that. 1:52:19 You know, you have your orders of the day, here's your uniform of the day, and by the way, there's some exemptions today. 1:52:23 It's going to be cold out, you're authorized to, you know, use a mask for that purpose, as we would do in like the Army back in my day. 1:52:30 So I don't know if it's still like that, but it was when I was in. 1:52:34 So that's kind of how I thought about it, and that's why I Thank you, Councilor Green.
1:52:40 Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
1:52:45 Thank you, Council President. 1:52:47 Um, colleagues, I know there are a lot of changes here in what you're looking at and some Scribner errors that were corrected in what you have before you on paper. 1:52:59 I want to speak a little bit as to why I I signed on to an amendment, and Council President, I will have some questions that I want to ask, so I'll get back into the queue for that after others have a little bit of time. 1:53:12 My questions are more related to the underlying and the general concept here. 1:53:18 You know, I think it is not a surprise that Councilor Kanal and I, while both very detail-focused, And I think I was pretty clear with a lot of folks on council that while I absolutely agree with the goals and values of the original version, I couldn't get there on it because I didn't think it was going to do the things we needed to, to keep Portlanders safe and work in a way that was implementable. 1:53:56 Councilmember Herbold. 1:53:57 That we could stand behind and say, yes, this will happen in the way that we're saying it will. 1:54:03 I had concerns on the labor side and the operational side. 1:54:09 I also, though, kept coming back to that need to do something to support our community here, and the very poignant call I was hearing from Portlanders who expect us to do everything we can. 1:54:25 To not just hold the line, but push the line on our response to the federal government and to set the standard for what we can do, knowing that there is a lot that we can't do. 1:54:39 And I will ask some questions to get some of those pieces on the record later in our conversation. 1:54:47 I want to thank Councilor Kanal for taking seriously the concerns that I raised. 1:54:53 And I want to thank PPB and the Public Safety Service Area for sitting down with me and walking through the implementation side and what we could do to make sure that this both responds to the clarion call from community that we're hearing, but does so in a way that is implementable. 1:55:18 I also appreciate conversations to that end with the City Attorney's Office. 1:55:24 In the amendment before us, we added a number of tools for identifying law enforcement from all levels of government on Portland streets, not just targeting a single agency, along with codifying state law and pushing PPB to continue to be on the front end, which I know Councilor Kanal was working to do at every step of the way. 1:55:52 We made sure that we could do that in a way that moves forward as quickly as possible. 1:56:01 And we added key protections to the bargaining process, both in some of the changes that are made in the text and in changes that were made before I was signed on in language that ensures that pieces of this that must be bargained will be before they go into effect. 1:56:19 And Robert Taylor, if you're in the room, I'll want to ask a question a little bit later about implementation because it's my understanding that pieces of this will, will be implemented on different timelines, some at the normal 30-day mark and some after they are bargained because there's clear direction that there are pieces of this the implementation of which we will need to bargain. 1:56:41 We need to let that process play out. 1:56:43 We also can't stop council from acting when there's a clear reason to act. 1:56:49 For those reasons and many more, I got to a place where I felt like I could strongly support an amendment to this policy. 1:56:59 I, like I said, will ask some questions later to make sure our intent is I think it is important that we worked hard to get this right. 1:57:10 And I think it's important that we are hearing from Portlanders who are the most affected, both about what they need to feel safe and about how we can meet those needs in a meaningful way, in a way that is implementable, in a way that actually moves us forward. 1:57:29 I think that what we have before us today does that.
1:57:31 Councilmember Herbold.
1:57:32 And I would ask for folks who have been on board from the start to be willing to take this step with Councilor Kanal and I, and folks who have not been on board to look seriously at the changes and consider joining us in moving this forward. 1:57:49 Thank you.
1:57:50 Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. 1:57:52 Councilor Ryan, to the amendment.
1:57:54 Yeah, thank you, Council President. 1:57:56 First, thank you to the heartfelt Thank you. 1:57:58 Thank you, Councilor Smith, for the testimony we heard last week. 1:58:01 I realize that was just a week ago, but it was compelling. 1:58:05 As this amendment was shared this morning, I'm trying to get current. 1:58:08 Can you explain in your own words, sponsors— I'm looking at your empty chair because I know you're remote, Pirtle-Guiney— what this amendment does to meet community needs at this time?
1:58:24 Just clarifying the question before I respond to it, Councilor Ryan, when you say the amendment, do you mean The ordinance itself or the new change that is being proposed right now?
1:58:33 I think speaking to the amendment, 'cause the amendment that you approved as a friendly amendment, or you're doing it with her, is additive. 1:58:40 So tell me why that's so.
1:58:44 Yeah, I can go first if— okay, I see a nod there. 1:58:47 So the first thing is we got feedback. 1:58:53 I think one of the great things, it's also a challenging thing for those who've been following along with our new council relative to the council before, Is that the new form of government took effect with an expanded council at the same time that there's new public meetings law. 1:59:08 So one of the frustrating things is that we do a lot more in public and that makes it slower. 1:59:13 And one of the great things is we do a lot of things in public and now you get to see the sausage getting made more often. 1:59:19 So there are trade-offs and finding the right balance is a state conversation that I'm sure we're all going to weigh in on more obliquely. 1:59:25 But as it relates to where we are now and how this works, Thank you. 1:59:28 We heard the feedback from last time that we brought this up, both from the testifiers and from colleagues who have discussed this at different levels. 1:59:40 It's also come to committee, the CAPS committee originally, a couple times as well. 1:59:44 So as we go through it, there was some duplicative language. 1:59:47 That duplicative language had the risk of being interpreted as separate requirements. 1:59:52 I think that's really important. 1:59:53 You can see a lot of specific sections that have been Just crossed out because of that. 1:59:59 Part of that is previous amendments had erased references to sections. 2:00:04 So there's a definition that has no— it never got used. 2:00:07 So why do you need the definition? 2:00:08 So, but part of it is just ensuring that there's no misinterpretation. 2:00:12 Moving an item that was effectively a definition in a paragraph that there was no operation to it into the definition section better clarifies legislative intent. 2:00:21 Thank you. 2:00:23 More clarity around interpretation of what constitutes an investigation when there is reasonable suspicion, or the step that has to come before that, which is a preliminary investigation, which is officers looking into the context. 2:00:36 So you can see preliminary— those words are being referenced several times here. 2:00:40 And then, as you— we've talked a little bit about so far today, the documentation requirements, aligning it with how we wanted it to ensure that there is information so that the public has a right to know, which I think is the fundamental answer to your question, what does this do to benefit the community, is it ensures you have a right to know who is operating and who's claiming law enforcement authority, but also ensuring that it's operationally feasible and not creating an undue burden. 2:01:10 I think that's the big broad strokes of the amendment. 2:01:13 And I don't know if Councilor Pirtle-Guiney would like to add it. 2:01:17 Oh, one other thing. 2:01:18 We borrowed with extreme gratitude the section adding from Councilor Novick, the section adding the right to a lawsuit to seek injunctive relief to make that explicit. 2:01:31 And that is the very end of the document. 2:01:33 And I just wanted to make sure that that was clear.
2:01:39 Thank you, Councilor Ryan, for the question and Councilor Kanal for taking it further. 2:01:44 First, I'll pick up on that last piece that Councilor Kanal just named. 2:01:48 I think the new thing here is that injunctive relief. 2:01:54 But more broadly, what I have heard from community that folks want that we can do, because there's a lot that we can't do, right? 2:02:04 At the end of the day, the Supremacy Clause exists and there are limitations to what we can do. 2:02:11 But I have heard a real community interest in knowing what law enforcement agencies are operating in our city and in having the assurance when a law enforcement entity is operating in our city in a way in which the average person walking by can't tell if it's a law enforcement agent or not. 2:02:39 Understanding who that is and having some assurance that there's a way of, of making sure that they are in fact a law enforcement officer. 2:02:50 Often PPB already knows these things, but not always. 2:02:53 We started this work in the Protect Portland initiative where we talked about check and verify, calling dispatch and other agencies to find out who was here. 2:03:03 This takes the next step in ensuring that people know who is operating in our city, and that when somebody is operating in such a way that the average person walking by can't tell if they're a law enforcement agent or not, we look into that. 2:03:16 I also have heard loud and clear that there's an interest in understanding when there are other agencies operating in Portland, which happens all the time, right? 2:03:26 We share jurisdiction in our city with a number of other entities, that if they are not operating in a way that meets our state or local standards, we know that. 2:03:39 And we start to build an understanding of where we have folks operating in our city under different standards. 2:03:46 And that's some of the reporting requirements are to help build that understanding. 2:03:52 I want to be really clear that there is a lot that community has asked for that I don't think we can legally do. 2:03:59 But I do think that on those 3 things, knowing who's here, knowing who it is if the average person can't tell, building that understanding of who might be operating regularly in our city to different standards, and then having that injunctive relief, those are things I think we can do that this measure clearly lays out a path for— for this amendment, I should say.
2:04:22 Councilmember Herbold?
2:04:24 A follow-up then would be to get to the practical effects of your amendment. 2:04:28 Can you give us a real-world scenario of a Portland Police Bureau officer encountering a masked ICE agent? 2:04:35 What would the PPB officer do under this policy?
2:04:43 So let me start by saying, uh, and, and I'm gonna— this is gonna sound like it's, uh, not relevant at first, but it is. 2:04:50 Earlier in this meeting, uh, Council President mentioned that when we are virtual, we have to have our camera on, right? 2:04:58 Um, and the reason for that is on Zoom you can see a name, but I could change my name right now in Zoom on here, and without the ability to know our face, we don't actually know who this person is. 2:05:11 We have to look into it. 2:05:12 If you're familiar with the, uh, Schrödinger's cat, um, thought experiment, um, the idea that you don't know the condition of an entity until you look at it is the That's correct. 2:05:20 That's the sort of colloquial oversimplification. 2:05:24 So at the time that a Portland police officer encounters the individual in question, they don't know whether or not that person is an ICE agent or not. 2:05:31 They don't know if that person's MCSO. 2:05:32 They don't know if it's another Portland police officer in this hypothetical context, right? 2:05:36 They are seeing a person who is wearing a mask. 2:05:40 Now, if that person is not claiming law enforcement authority, then there's no reason— it doesn't involve the scope at all. 2:05:48 If they are claiming law enforcement authority and doing something that they would need that authority to do, for example, putting a different person zip-tied into the back of a vehicle, that is where the scope would potentially come into play. 2:06:02 The first thing would be to look and see, is there, you know, visible authority? 2:06:07 And that's the language that we were talking about earlier with Councilor Novick's question About, um, uh, lacking immediate proof of authority. 2:06:17 So only if all of that is, is applicable does the Portland police officer actually have to do anything. 2:06:23 Okay, let's start with that. 2:06:25 Um, the second thing is they have to do a preliminary investigation. 2:06:29 And now I'm, I'm moving from Section A— this is 23-3050A, bottom of page 6— moving into Part B at the beginning of page At that point, the obligatory actions are to notify— the PPB officer would notify their supervisor. 2:06:46 They would also contact possible agencies or dispatch centers. 2:06:50 This would be calling somebody in potential agencies that this person might work for if in fact they are law enforcement, right? 2:06:58 Potential imposter may be law enforcement, may not be. 2:07:02 And then they have other things that they can look for. 2:07:06 But all that is optional. 2:07:07 The only required activity is what I just said, the notifying the supervisor, um, and calling the dispatch centers. 2:07:14 Um, the other things then, uh, only in the event of— after assessing the totality of the circumstances, and I believe this is called Terry, right? 2:07:24 I'm seeing, uh, the, the rules about reasonable suspicion is the— it's case law, um, at the— on the federal level. 2:07:29 If there's reasonable Yes. 2:07:30 If there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, is about to be being committed, or was just committed, then the officer can continue on into the next stage, which is now getting into Part C. And that's the federal standard. 2:07:44 We didn't touch that, of what constitutes reasonable suspicion. 2:07:48 And that's where the reasonable suspicion is that the person may be an imposter. 2:07:52 But if at any point we're seeing that a Portland police officer is finding some information to dispel the notion of reasonable suspicion, including but not limited to this person has a badge in their pocket that they show them, including that they called the FBI and the FBI said, yeah, we got people at this, at this, uh, in this neighborhood. 2:08:14 Um, all of those types of things are among the ways that, that the notion that they may be an imposter can be dispelled, but they're not the only ones. 2:08:26 That, and that effectively concludes the interaction. 2:08:30 And then there is one follow-up requirement, which is the incident report. 2:08:36 And now we're switching to page 8, 233060. 2:08:40 And that's all the parts that we were talking about in terms of the— that Councilor Zimmerman was asking about earlier with written reports, body cams, if applicable. 2:08:50 And it's a lot of put the information you have in. 2:08:53 And I believe we just added a section to that particular requirement with Novick 2 as well. 2:08:59 So that's— I think that's— without getting into even more detail, I think that's the response to your question. 2:09:09 Now, in the event, of course, that we know that this person, that the police officer is aware that this person is a law enforcement official at any level, Council President, can I jump in here as well?
2:09:26 I think that last piece is really important. 2:09:28 Councilor Ryan, you asked the question, if a Portland police officer is called out because an ICE agent is taking action in Portland, what are they required to do? 2:09:40 And the reality is, if a Portland Police Bureau officer is called out to assist ICE agents, The Portland police officer knows that the individual taking an action is an ICE agent and that, that level of proof has been met, they disengage. 2:10:00 They don't continue through the process that Councilor Kanal has just described because the preliminary investigation to find out who they are is not required. 2:10:10 Thank you. 2:10:12 The proof or the reasonable suspicion would not be there because we know who they are and why they're operating in our city. 2:10:23 I think that's a really important point when we talk about what the limitations are in what we can do. 2:10:28 And it's also a really important point in thinking about the legality of the measure. 2:10:38 Those pieces of this amendment, and if it's adopted, the underlying are about what we do when we don't know who somebody is who's operating in our city.
2:11:00 Okay, thank you very much. 2:11:02 Councilor Novick.
2:11:04 Thank you, Mr. President. 2:11:06 I'd like to take a shot at answering, giving answers to a couple of Councilor Ryan's questions too. 2:11:12 One is I just wanted to say, Councilor Ryan, that a few days ago I was looking at a draft of this document and I was very confused. 2:11:18 And I told Councilor Kanal, I'm in various ways, I'm not sure if I were a Portland police officer whether I'd know what to do under this thing. 2:11:26 So actually a lot of the modifications we've made over the last few days were addressed towards precisely that point. 2:11:31 And personally, I had a version of this. 2:11:34 My Novick 7 basically just said PPV officers shall make reasonable efforts to determine whether the person is in fact a law enforcement officer acting under lawful authority. 2:11:42 I thought that would have been good enough, but I felt that we were able to move close enough to that that I'm comfortable with this. 2:11:49 And my interpretation of your question of you— the police show up and somebody's wearing a mask, I think even if they're wearing a mask, if they're wearing a unique identifier, name tag, and a badge, That I think that is still proof of authority. 2:12:01 That's the way I'm reading it. 2:12:04 Another thing I wanted to say, though, is in response to the question, you know, what are we— what community demands is this responding to? 2:12:13 I would say, and I think I have an obligation as the only lawyer on this council to say this, we are trying to respond to the community demand that people know who's policing them. 2:12:24 I have to say that I think it is It's likely that we will fail because the Ninth Circuit panel that ruled on the California masking— not masking, identification requirement a few weeks ago said basically that the state cannot override the federal government's power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers. 2:12:49 Now, that was a preliminary ruling in the context of a preliminary investigation. 2:12:53 I mean, a preliminary injunction, so technically it's preliminary, but the language is decisive. 2:13:00 And that panel is never going to say that the law we're proposing here is legal. 2:13:08 Now, it is conceivable that the full Ninth Circuit, if that ruling or another ruling was appealed to the full Ninth Circuit, would reverse that decision, or that the Supreme Court might reverse It is conceivable. 2:13:25 The fact, however, that it was a unanimous bipartisan panel, including an Obama appointee, makes it, in my view, very unlikely that the decision will be overturned. 2:13:36 I actually asked the ACLU the other day, do we have any examples of a unanimous bipartisan decision on a hot potato issue like this being overturned? 2:13:44 And they— and I don't have an answer yet. 2:13:46 I think this is a long shot. 2:13:47 I think it's a long shot. 2:13:48 I think it's an important enough issue to the community that's worth taking the long shot. 2:13:52 As I said last time, I'm a sports fan, and the Mets did come back in the bottom of the 10th in 1986, and the Lakers came back with 30 seconds left being down 6 with Houston having the ball just a couple of weeks ago. 2:14:06 So miracles do happen, but I do think we need to be straight with the community. 2:14:10 It's unlikely.
2:14:12 Thank you, Councilor Novick. 2:14:13 Councilor Kanal.
2:14:16 Yeah, I just wanted to start by adding that the version that for the public is the one online, that that is now the public version as well. 2:14:28 The second thing I wanted to do is just ask Councilor Novick, we could probably use the Portland Fire example from last night if we're looking for comebacks. 2:14:36 Buzzer beater there for those who weren't taking note. 2:14:40 And the third thing I just wanted to say is, well, I guess I can hold off on the points unless there's specific questions, but I think Councilor Novick's point about trying to respond and Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's point about trying to meet the need within the context of the law is really the starting point of this whole thing. 2:15:04 And the right to know is, I mean, that's why it's the name of it. 2:15:08 It's the core concept here. 2:15:11 So I appreciate that. 2:15:12 I will ask if anyone wants to get in the queue to do so, 'cause I'll move to just on the amendment to limit debate to the current queue and anyone who wants to get in, get in. 2:15:23 But yeah.
2:15:25 Thank you, Councilor Kanal. 2:15:27 Councilor Smith, to the amendment.
2:15:30 Yes, I wanted to comment on Councilor Novick's Comments. 2:15:36 If you think it's going to be not going to be overturned, then why do it?
2:15:43 Because it's a one in a million chance. 2:15:45 That's really the reason. 2:15:47 And I don't see any reason not to take, to take the one in a million chance.
2:15:52 Well, I'm going to be looking to our legal counsel to see if it is constitutional for us to do this. 2:15:58 And, um, I, I don't think we do one in a million chances We took an oath and we have to follow the Constitution, the U.S. Constitution and the Oregon Constitution, and I don't think it's fair or right to mislead people to thinking that this is going to do more than what it actually does.
2:16:22 Thank you, Councilor Smith. 2:16:23 Vice President Clark, to the amendment.
2:16:26 I'm not sure— Councilor Smith, are you asking for our legal department to come up and address that?
2:16:32 Yes, I, I don't see— is Robert here? 2:16:39 Okay, you're hiding from me. 2:16:42 They've been doing that all day today.
2:16:50 Uh, Robert Taylor, City Attorney. 2:16:52 For the record, I was not hiding.
2:16:54 I was picking up my papers We're hiding nothing in the City of Portland. 2:17:00 We never do.
2:17:01 We never do that. 2:17:02 We never do that. 2:17:03 Um, thank you for the question. 2:17:06 I think by and large I agree with Councilor Novick. 2:17:11 Uh, the decision— and this council as a local government, we are in a very difficult situation right now because we have a state law that That's correct. 2:17:23 That, on the face of the state law, has requirements for masking and identification requirements for federal, state, and local law enforcement. 2:17:33 We are trying to comply with that state law. 2:17:36 I believe this ordinance complies with that state law. 2:17:40 There has also recently been this Ninth Circuit decision. 2:17:45 That Ninth Circuit decision, it is a Published panel decision of the 9th Circuit. 2:17:54 It's on a preliminary injunction. 2:17:57 The rule of law in the 9th Circuit is that a published panel decision on an injunction is binding on other panels of the 9th Circuit and lower courts in the 9th Circuit. 2:18:06 So that decision is binding on us, and that decision said states and cities cannot directly regulate There it is. 2:18:16 Masking for federal law enforcement or identification requirements for federal law enforcement. 2:18:22 So the law today is it is unconstitutional for state or local governments to try to directly regulate.
2:18:31 Our state law tells us to do that. 2:18:34 And so I think that is the position we are in today, is trying to thread that needle, comply with the state law, Do the regulations, the ordinance or the code would allow us to file a suit to try to enforce this against the federal government, and we can make our legal arguments in that litigation. 2:18:59 And there's, as Councilor Novick gave you the odds on the success of that, and I think he's probably right about that. 2:19:06 I think it's 50/50.
2:19:08 I appreciate his honesty on that and telling folks, but you just said something that is a— I don't cross that line. 2:19:23 If you're saying that this is unconstitutional, that that decision is binding, and that what we're doing here is not legal, really what you're saying. 2:19:32 I'm not saying that. 2:19:34 To us. 2:19:34 We're in— we would be in violation. 2:19:37 And so why are we doing this? 2:19:39 And, and, and how were the makers of, of, of these amendments able to bring them forward if they are unconstitutional? 2:19:47 Because they have to go through legal counsel. 2:19:49 I don't get what's going on here.
2:19:52 I, I appreciate that. 2:19:54 And, uh, and we have advised on the risks of this, and, and we have advised on the The difficult situation the city is in with trying to comply both with state law and now this recent 9th Circuit decision. 2:20:11 That is, we are in complex legal times that are changing rapidly.
2:20:17 And we are now kind of in the difficult situation posed by that.
2:20:22 And I, yeah, I hear you. 2:20:24 And I could see a scenario where if it changes and that $1 million of a time, then we come back and do these amendments in, in our version of what the mass law should be. 2:20:37 But at this point, I am totally satisfied with the state law. 2:20:41 I am not happy. 2:20:42 I am not— I'm troubled by, by colleagues who are trying to force me to do something that's unconstitutional, and, and they know it. 2:20:52 And, and the makers are saying that this is a A, a, a, a one in a million chance of, of it holding up. 2:21:00 So for me, I think as, as legal counsel for all of us, for me, y'all tell me I can't have a, a software program in our firm or than, than what you're being with us right now with this mask ordinance. 2:21:16 Say no, you can't do that, Councilor. 2:21:17 That's— Okay. 2:21:21 I can't do it. 2:21:23 But I think we are tiptoeing around here. 2:21:27 We have something here in Oregon that a lot of folks don't have. 2:21:31 That's good. 2:21:32 Let's see what it looks like. 2:21:34 Let's see how we can help, because I don't want people to get a false sense that Portland Police can go around taking off masks of folks. 2:21:43 Let's put it like this. 2:21:44 I worked for a U.S. 2:21:45 Senator, Ron Wyden, for 21 years. 2:21:47 He sits on the Finance Committee as the chairman. 2:21:51 Immigration and ICE never listen to him, and he has authority over them. 2:21:55 What the heck are they going to do with this, this ordinance that, that we're putting through? 2:22:01 They're not going to listen to us, and they know they don't have to listen to us. 2:22:05 This is performative at this point.
2:22:10 Just a quick point of order. 2:22:11 Uh, the, uh, The quote was that the makers are saying that this is unconstitutional. 2:22:17 That is not accurate at all.
2:22:18 Not the makers. 2:22:19 Well, the makers are saying that—.
2:22:20 That's the exact quote. 2:22:21 I just wanted to note that. 2:22:23 Thanks.
2:22:23 The makers are saying that it is a one in a million chance that this is going to stick.
2:22:29 Councilor Novick says that. 2:22:30 I meant— that's who I was talking about, Councilor Novick. 2:22:34 So you have to decide on the underlying what to do, but I think you need to set a a line in the sand. 2:22:39 Um, City Attorney Taylor, you need to tell us what to do and what not to do, because for us to sit here and waste this kind of time—.
2:22:51 This is a first for Loretta.
2:22:55 I'm with him when he right.
2:23:03 All right, thank you, Councilor Mr. 2:23:04 Chair, colleagues, we are half an hour past where we're supposed to be at this point. 2:23:07 We have 2 more items after this and we are to the amendment. 2:23:11 And also, Councilor Kanal had moved to limit debate to those who were in the queue. 2:23:19 I believe Councilor Pirtle-Guiney was the last in the queue at that moment. 2:23:22 I had taken that. 2:23:23 And then when we were done with this, we were gonna take a break 'cause I was hoping to give us a bio break at 4 o'clock and it's now 4:20. 2:23:28 So Vice President Clark.
2:23:30 Thank you, Council President. 2:23:31 I'll be very brief as usual. 2:23:34 Um, I feel like I'm at a very distinct disadvantage because I just got this amendment today, um, and I'm rushing and struggling to, uh, integrate it all. 2:23:47 Um, and I just want to say that I really appreciate that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney is trying to respond to a call, but I don't think it's I guess I agree with Councilor Smith that I think we're creating false hopes among the community, that we're raising expectations that we won't be able to meet. 2:24:08 And, um, that concerns me. 2:24:11 And I appreciate your opinion, Robert Taylor, about this and the unconstitutionality of it. 2:24:19 So I think that we are, uh, I don't think that it keeps Portlanders any safer, and there's not much we can do, and I think we are raising false hopes. 2:24:30 But I appreciate the sincere attempt on the part of the drafters to meet those hopes, but I don't think we can. 2:24:39 Just leave it at that.
2:24:41 Thank you, Vice President Clark. 2:24:42 Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
2:24:45 Thank you, Council President. 2:24:46 Is Robert Taylor still up there by chance? 2:24:48 He is. 2:24:50 Mr. Taylor, is there anything unconstitutional about the verification portions of this measure?
2:25:00 Oh, that's a great question, and I should also note that if a court holds that the regulations in this code directed at Federal law enforcement are unconstitutional, then there's a severability provision. 2:25:20 They would be severed. 2:25:22 Those would not go into effect, but the remainder of it would go into effect. 2:25:27 So I think that's an important point. 2:25:29 To get to your question, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, I view the code as currently written as It's hewing very close to what the existing law is and what the existing process would be. 2:25:51 And I do think it's important to note, and for the record, and if we ever end up getting in litigation, what that verification is getting at now is a very important government interest.
2:26:07 The first government interest is it is illegal to impersonate a police officer, a local police officer or a federal police officer. 2:26:16 So we have a government interest in trying to enforce those criminal laws. 2:26:20 Secondly, and this word has been talked about before, but this concept of deconfliction, where we have our local officers, we do not want them to come in conflict with other law enforcement who are engaged in legitimate law enforcement activities. 2:26:38 And so both to enforce the laws against impersonation and to ensure deconfliction, this code now provides for if an office— if a PPB officer shows up and there is indicia of authority, then no action is required.
2:27:02 You can do, can do a preliminary investigation if that's not clear. 2:27:06 Preliminary investigation is calling dispatch, for example. 2:27:11 And you can only move to actually detain a federal law enforcement or do anything like that if you have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. 2:27:21 And that's the constitutional standard anyway. 2:27:24 And I think all of those steps that I have outlined are things we would do now.
2:27:28 If we thought that person looks like they're impersonating a police officer and doing something illegal, we would try to verify their authority.
2:27:37 We would call dispatch.
2:27:39 We would investigate until we thought there was a crime. 2:27:42 So, so on the verification part of this, how it is crafted now today, I would be comfortable defending that portion of it.
2:27:53 So I think the point that I want to make, and I hear you that some of this is what we would do now, and I think I think in many cases it is what happens now, and we want to make sure we capture the exceptions to that. 2:28:05 The point that I want to make sure that we can make is that this will be challenged. 2:28:14 There are pieces of this that may be deemed unconstitutional. 2:28:18 Councilor Novick thinks it's a one in a million chance that it won't be, I think was what you said.
2:28:24 But even if the way that 2330.030 and are applied to federal agents or other law enforcement agents of agencies that, um, are of a higher authority than our fine city, with that severability clause, other things that we're doing would be able to move forward. 2:28:49 And I, I just think that's a really Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
2:28:58 Can we please move to a roll call vote on Kanal-Pirtle-Guiney 1?
2:29:23 I believe we should adopt the state law, watch its implementation, and come back and change it at a later date. 2:29:28 I'm a no. 2:29:31 Aye.
2:29:43 Ask the question again.
2:29:54 That's a nay to Canal Pirtle Guinea 1 from Smith.
2:29:59 I believe that's a no. 2:30:01 Yeah. 2:30:01 Thank you. 2:30:01 Yes. 2:30:02 Thank you.
2:30:04 Dunphy. 2:30:05 Aye.
2:30:07 And the amendment is approved as amended. 2:30:11 With 8 aye and 4 nay votes.
2:30:13 Okay, colleagues, I'm going to give us a restroom break. 2:30:18 Please come back in— let's call it 10 minutes— 4:35. 2:44:06 Okay, welcome back, folks. 2:44:09 We are now in councilor discussion of this item. 2:44:12 Uh, Councilor Zimmerman, you are first in the queue for questions.
2:44:18 Okay, thanks. 2:44:20 I have several, and I'll just say, Mr. President, I think that this may be one of the more consequential, so I frankly don't care about the arts tax compared to this topic. 2:44:29 So if we have to go late, we should. 2:44:31 So with respect to— that was a great discussion, frankly, on just the way that the different aspects of this are. 2:44:39 I'm slowing down, frankly, 'cause we have barely anybody on this dais right now. 2:44:48 I think I'm actually going to hold. 2:44:50 I'd like to have this conversation with people who are present, so I'm going to pause for a second.
2:44:56 Okay. 2:44:57 Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
2:45:01 Gosh, I can't see who's there and who's not there, and now I'm a little bit concerned. 2:45:06 I have a couple of questions, and I am guessing I'm guessing, given the time they spent with us this morning, that we don't have anybody from PPB or the Public Safety Service Area in the room. 2:45:18 Is that correct?
2:45:22 It— oh, we do have— we have at least one person here. 2:45:25 Yeah, Director Elizabeth. 2:45:26 Yeah, Director of, uh, BOEC. 2:45:30 Enterprise Services. 2:45:31 There we go, 2 for one.
2:45:34 Evolving test, uh, I have a couple of questions that maybe Director Perez can answer and maybe Robert Taylor can answer, and maybe I'll just assert what I have heard if neither of them can answer, because I do think it's really important that we're clear about what this does and doesn't do so that Portlanders know what to expect. 2:45:59 So my first question is, if this ordinance passes, are there any circumstances where a PPV officer would be directed to or even allowed to compel a non-cooperative federal agent to remove a face mask or a covering of some sort? 2:46:19 And what authority within this code change would compel them to do that in a way that is different from today?
2:46:27 Sounds a bit like a legal question.
2:46:31 Uh, good question. 2:46:32 Robert Taylor, City Attorney. 2:46:33 If I'm understanding the question, I think the answer is, is no. 2:46:38 Our officers would not be compelled to do that if it was clear that that person was a, a federal law enforcement agent operating with— oh, thank you. 2:46:49 Sorry, uh, I believe the answer is no if I understand the question, and that a A Portland police officer would not be compelled to forcibly remove the mask of a federal agent if it's clear that the federal agent is operating within its course and scope of its lawful duties.
2:47:10 Okay, and does this code change change at all our reasonable suspicion standard or an officer's ability to use their judgment in meeting that reasonable suspicion standard in the field? 2:47:27 No. 2:47:28 Okay. 2:47:30 Once an individual is verified to be a federal agent, will PPB be compelled, required, or allowed to delay or interfere with or otherwise Interact with that agent's activities?
2:47:54 Um, we talked about this previously, but I'm going to reiterate it. 2:47:58 Is it correct that in the current draft, subsection 2330.030 and directly address the conduct and characteristics of all law enforcement officers, including federal agents, but that the remainder of the ordinance mainly governs how our own officers interact with other agents working within our jurisdiction, but doesn't specifically compel the work of those other officers.
2:48:34 I believe that is correct. 2:48:37 And in the definition section in 2330.020, Yes. 2:48:42 You'll see there's a definition for officer, and there's also a separate definition for PPB officer. 2:48:52 So in the code change where it refers to PPB officer, we are talking about our law enforcement employees. 2:49:00 When we talk about— when we say officer without qualification, we are talking about any sworn law enforcement Okay.
2:49:14 Um, Elizabeth, I don't know if you can answer this or if we would need somebody from PPB, but can you speak to, with the changes in the amendment that's been adopted, um, the extent of any administrative burden on the reporting requirements and whether The bureau and the service area would consider those at this point. 2:49:40 Certainly it's new reporting. 2:49:41 Any reporting creates some administrative burden, but a high, medium, or low level of additional requirement at this point.
2:49:51 Elizabeth Perez, for the record. 2:49:54 At this point, hearing from PPB, it still increases the reporting. 2:50:00 But it would have to be PPB that lets us know what that burden is.
2:50:07 Okay. 2:50:08 From my conversations with them, my understanding is that with the ability to have bureau-wide or, um, um, group-wide reporting on exemptions, that that helps lower the burden. 2:50:26 As did some clarity around when the final reports would have to be written. 2:50:30 I don't want to speak for them on the level. 2:50:34 It sounds like we may need to just not have that answered today, and that's all right. 2:50:39 Mr. Taylor, given Sections C and D of the resolved clauses, not what is before us in the attachment that would be going into code, but that language that leads to our discussion of the code. 2:50:51 I think that's a good question. 2:50:54 Does the city plan to bargain implementation of pieces of the code if adopted?
2:51:02 Thank you. 2:51:02 Robert Taylor, City Attorney. 2:51:05 That— it's a great question. 2:51:06 Thank you for identifying that. 2:51:10 In the ordinance, which is the document that would enact the code provision, it has 2 directives in there, C and D. C says that the code provision only applies to members of affected bargaining units, which would in this instance be our Portland Police Association. 2:51:34 It only applies to members of affected bargaining units upon compliance with any legal obligation the city may have under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act. 2:51:45 So The code we've been talking about today would not apply to those bargaining units until we have complied with our obligation under that act to bargain. 2:51:58 And then also D says that we will give notice to any potentially affected bargaining unit, allow them an opportunity to demand to bargain, Which they have, on any mandatory subjects of bargaining. 2:52:17 And then the city would engage in good faith bargaining as required by law, as may be required, including the obligation to be open to proposals that change this code. 2:52:30 And then we would return to council with any proposed amendments to the code that result from the bargaining. 2:52:37 So that's the process in C&D.
2:52:39 That's outlined in the city's effort to meet our obligation under the law to bargain with the affected bargaining units.
2:52:47 So I think that's really important for 2 reasons. 2:52:49 The first is when we talk about implementation as a non-emergency ordinance, this measure is implemented in 30 days, but there are pieces of it that might not be fully implemented until a little further than that as we move through these processes. 2:53:05 The other thing that I think is important is that while council sets policy, we know that the implementation of the policy that we set has to move through rulemaking and sometimes bargaining processes to determine how our policies are implemented. 2:53:25 And we've heard a lot about the potential labor implications here.
2:53:31 In the work on the amendment, we tried to make sure that we were coming in in a place that is respectful of our union's rights—the right to bargain—and we do have language in to ensure that that bargaining over implementation happens, which is a really important piece of this. 2:54:10 So thank you, Robert, for helping to point that out. 2:54:15 Colleagues, I said earlier that I had heard a clear call from community that there was a need, and I wanted to make sure we did it right. 2:54:20 And I asked the questions I did because I wanted to make sure that we were doing it right. 2:54:22 And I asked the questions I did Because I think it is very important to be clear about what we can do and what we can't. 2:54:30 This is meaningful. 2:54:32 This is moving the needle on making sure that Portlanders understand who is operating in our community, um, and that we understand where there are folks who aren't living up to our standards and not. 2:54:46 There are things this doesn't do that people want it to do. 2:54:48 Yeah. 2:54:50 But I do think it is worth doing. 2:54:52 I think that it will be positive for our community, and I think that we can do it in a way that still respects our union's rights and that doesn't create too heavy a burden for our police bureau or for individual law enforcement officers. 2:55:11 I hope that we'll have strong support today. 2:55:14 Okay, thank you, Council President, and thank you to Director Perez and Mr. Taylor for those answers.
2:55:21 Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. 2:55:23 Colleagues, we are a full hour over our current time. 2:55:27 We have 2 more full items to go. 2:55:29 I have instructed council staff that we are here until we are done, and so it is up to this body to get us through this, but we are going to be continuing to work until we get done with all 3 of the items on our agenda. 2:55:43 Also, for everyone's edification, the item— our last item, the water bond item, has 24 people signed up to testify. 2:55:50 As such, I have reduced each testimony to 90 seconds. 2:55:55 Councilor Smith, is that a legacy hand, or—.
2:55:57 Okay, Councilor Zimmerman.
2:56:00 Thanks. 2:56:01 Um, I appreciate this. 2:56:04 I was really excited when I saw the state legislature Take action with 4138. 2:56:09 And Representative Chotson, who was here, I think it was March, in your committee, I thought he just did a wonderful job representing kind of, I think, our state and largely Portland's concerns with what we saw last summer and last fall. 2:56:25 And I share those concerns. 2:56:27 And the idea of the non-uniformed masked-up person Is a huge concern. 2:56:36 So I have a lot of support for 4138. 2:56:39 Today's answers, frankly, from the city attorney about constitutionality is giving me some pause on going further than the state law. 2:56:50 So Councilor Kanal, I mentioned to you in break, I want to— if you talked a little bit in your opening remarks about California law, and you referenced California law multiple times because we fall in the same Ninth Circuit as them. 2:57:07 It's relevant, obviously. 2:57:09 Can I ask you a little bit more specific what it is you were referencing in your opening dialogue and your disagreement with Ninth Circuit? 2:57:18 Because it sounds like both Councilors Novick and our city attorney are citing that as a big concern. 2:57:25 What was it you were?
2:57:28 Thank you for the question. 2:57:29 So I just wanted to clarify what I said. 2:57:33 We do something different than the California law does, is— was the point I was making. 2:57:38 Um, there's a term used in that ruling about direct regulation. 2:57:44 As I've mentioned, this does not include direct regulation in the same way. 2:57:50 What it does do is allow for seeking injunctive relief from a court. 2:57:53 We all have a right to sue when we feel that there's a reason to do that. 2:57:57 Our— the ordinance focuses primarily on imposters, and as our attorney mentioned, the verification piece as well as the documentation piece are outside of the scope of that ruling. 2:58:07 With relation to masks and identification—.
2:58:10 Can I ask clarifying?
2:58:11 The verification piece and the identification piece are outside the scope of that ruling, meaning our part in this, the verification identification, that's outside the scope of the Ninth Circuit that you're referencing?
2:58:21 Verification and documentation.
2:58:23 And documentation.
2:58:25 Because those are regulating what city employees do. 2:58:31 And then the other piece is, you know, as I mentioned, there's still an obligation at this present moment to abide by 4138 on the masking and identification side.
2:58:44 Okay. 2:58:45 And that's because California was saying something More aggressive in terms of what they were— what got struck down or whatever?
2:58:51 I, I don't know if I could classify it in terms of more or less aggressive, but it's different. 2:58:55 Uh, the text is different, and I— that— yeah.
2:58:58 Okay, I want to pick up kind of where Councilor Pirtle-Guiney left off. 2:59:03 She said that this is doing something that meets people's needs, and so this is a part that's kind of giving me a little bit of heartburn based on— I was I was both very much aware of the testimony that we got from the public. 2:59:19 Was it last week? 2:59:21 The week before? 2:59:22 And then hearing all of those who crafted this and what our police chief and our mayor and our city attorneys and what they say is actually going to happen. 2:59:34 For whatever reason, and I am not going to cast blame anywhere, for whatever reason over the last couple weeks, It was seen as if— I think this got proposed like Portland Police were gonna assign a squad or something to follow ICE and then demask, right? 2:59:48 And I think that that unfortunately really set up a dialogue that, well, that would be great, is clearly just not what this does. 2:59:58 And I think you're nodding in agreement. 2:59:59 I see that you're agreeing to that. 3:00:01 So I'm still having trouble based on what Councilor Pirtle-Guiney just said for When she talks about what this does, other than it very clearly defines, which so does 4138, that Portland Police cannot wear masks and must wear identifying uniforms or badges or numbers and names in accordance with the state law, which I think is great. 3:00:27 But I do not know what it is that she or you are referencing in terms of— The mask mandate. 3:00:34 What it does on that. 3:00:36 The point in life where Portland Police would cross paths with federal police or agents, different than what our city attorney talked about, we currently have laws on the books for the impersonation of an officer, and we can go down those investigations. 3:00:56 So I'm having trouble with a little bit of like, what's the real meat here on that? 3:00:59 I think the point is that Part of it, not the masking part. 3:01:01 That's very clear. 3:01:02 I got that. 3:01:03 Um, given this new amendment, you know, we received a letter from the mayor 2 weeks ago urging us not to support your initial thing. 3:01:13 Now things have been amended, but I haven't seen the city administrator, the mayor, the chief of police— I haven't seen them in this room endorsing this change, saying this is actually This is operational. 3:01:29 And I'm wondering if it comes down to a part in the way you describe in here, I think it's the area of the identifying what the preliminary investigation is. 3:01:41 And I say it from this perspective, we set laws, but I don't know any other laws yet where we have said this is how you'll investigate that law.
3:01:52 Whether it's been broken or not, I find that to be fully into the administration's role insofar as there are policies at the bureau that would say, you know, we investigate, name the crime, this way, and that's the chief's prerogative. 3:02:07 This one seems differently, or different. 3:02:11 Is it different?
3:02:12 Are you sensing a desire to outline how we encode Are going to say how this law will be preliminarily investigated? 3:02:25 Because that seems like an interesting rub here that I'm wondering, is the concern— maybe that's the concern from the administration, is that that's something that's in that branch of government and not in our branch of government. 3:02:37 I'm curious to you, Councilor Kanal, like, how does that question land on you? 3:02:40 What's your interpretation? 3:02:41 Or maybe what was your intent?
3:02:44 Thank you for the question. 3:02:47 I guess let me start by saying, um, there's— it's, it's interesting because sometimes there's a third party who'll say this ordinance claims to do ABC, and then I'm asked, or the, you know, our co-sponsors are asked to, to justify that when we never said it would do that. 3:03:02 Um, so I just want to clarify, um, as I said in January when somebody asked what would this do, uh, in the committee, uh, CAPS committee, what would this do about If an ICE agent is masked and doing, I can't remember what the end of the question was. 3:03:16 And I said, I'm pretty sure this is a quote, absolutely nothing. 3:03:20 And there were people who were in the crowd that were there to support the ordinance, and at least two of them booed at that because it's not in anyone's interest for us to oversell what this does. 3:03:30 It's in nobody's interest. 3:03:32 You could, you know, in some period of time, we would immediately be losing trust if we said it does more than it does. 3:03:42 And that's a similar thing for the idea, as has been expressed, that this would cause Portland Police to go around taking off masks. 3:03:49 It does not do that. 3:03:52 To directly answer the question— excuse me— it's about checking every time and documenting those checks. 3:04:00 It's about ensuring that we have options. 3:04:03 I mentioned that the preliminary investigation is ongoing. 3:04:04 So it's not about taking off masks? 3:04:05 Is very limited in what it requires. 3:04:08 It requires a phone call, notification of a supervisor, and a phone call to the potential dispatching agents of if the potential imposter is not an imposter and in fact a law enforcement agent. 3:04:21 And then after-the-fact documentation.
3:04:23 Okay. 3:04:24 So that— when you explain that, or that's where I— one of the things I wrote down is like, we've all seen it. 3:04:28 We've all been outside and we've— I mean, these are horrific Thank you. 3:04:31 —Interactions that are very scary for the public. 3:04:34 So I'm trying to put my— like, if I were to be stopped by a police officer for any number of crimes, there's that point, and maybe if you're a nerd and you've watched some of these police videos, people ask, am I being detained? 3:04:51 Am I under arrest? 3:04:51 Those are like important questions. 3:04:54 So in that instance, are you— does this law then dictate that a Portland police officer, Yes. 3:04:59 Because what we saw is ICE came in fast, rapid, with minivans, put people in, and then they left. 3:05:08 If a Portland police officer was standing there, or if they got called to that situation— if they're standing there, great, at least they have the sense. 3:05:14 I have a feeling if they got a 911 call, the ability to get there before the scene is cleared is unlikely. 3:05:20 So, I'm trying to put some reality around, like, what does this interaction look like? 3:05:24 But me, as a civilian, What's the question? 3:05:26 If during the preliminary part of an investigation, I decide to walk off, are we putting a place where a federal officer kind of flips the bird at a Portland police officer and says, that's great that you're trying to verify my identity, shove off, and they continue their mission and they do their thing? 3:05:46 Are we— are you asking that we pursue that, that we just say, okay, we just stop and say, Okay. 3:05:52 Somebody grabbed somebody and there was not enough— I'm going to use the word incorrectly here, but indicia— there's not enough indicia that, that they were a law enforcement, a federal law enforcement officer, and then I call my own supervisor and I say, I think this is a concern, or do they pursue that? 3:06:12 I guess I'm trying to get a sense for, for what the preliminary part, when you describe it that way, given how fast these interactions Were happening in the community. 3:06:20 We got a lot of calls, I feel like, as it was happening, but by the time that they're gone—.
3:06:27 I just, I'm trying to think through this because like I said, like, there's a few pieces here. 3:06:31 I'm trying to understand the rub.
3:06:34 Thank you. 3:06:35 Uh, so I think you've identified the— and this is colloquial, I'm not a lawyer— uh, distinction between preliminary and, and, uh, The Part C section here of investigations, it is the idea of a stop or seizure. 3:06:49 It's, am I free to go?
3:06:52 I think you're correct that many of the interactions are very rapid, and it is possible, and in fact likely in those scenarios, that a responding officer, PPB officer, would arrive after the incident is over. 3:07:04 There's also examples of a person is trying to get into a building to detain somebody, and the door is locked. 3:07:11 And so that interaction might last longer. 3:07:14 Enough for a Portland police officer who has been dispatched to arrive. 3:07:18 So there, it's not 100% of the time, it is some of the time that there would be a rapid interaction. 3:07:22 In that scenario, excuse me, the person could, the potential imposter could say pound sand and go. 3:07:32 And the determination of what continues on is what is already in federal law with no change, which is the presence of reasonable suspicion that a crime is, is about to be, or just was committed. 3:07:44 And that's all retained exactly as is with no changes.
3:07:49 Thanks. 3:07:50 That is helpful because, so I'm gonna put Councilor Green and I kind of in a bucket that's different than the rest of you, which is we can probably, the two of us having spent time in uniform and in the military, we can, We can identify somebody who's cosplaying probably quicker than the rest of you because we kind of know what a proper uniform looks like. 3:08:14 We kind of know what— how somebody might use the certain words, etc. 3:08:18 And I can see that a police officer could also make that determination, maybe from further away than satisfies the public or satisfies the person who's made the call. 3:08:30 But I think you're acknowledging that That every interaction with a federal officer with a mask on is not gonna result in a Portland police officer intervening and stopping them?
3:08:41 Pulling the mask down, getting ID, and doing the whole, like, let me take my notes. 3:08:46 You're saying, I think what I'm hearing you say is they could use any one of the criteria that you've identified as, like, from afar, and I think that Mitch and I could do it with soldiers, but from afar we could say, like, That's a real operation. 3:09:03 What do we say then to the public who kind of expects that this is going to have us interact with every one of those calls that comes up? 3:09:10 If we have another surge like we experienced in the fall, which was a terrible couple of months there, do we say that we're following the letter or we're surged out, we can't do it? 3:09:24 Like, how do you see that interaction going, or do you give some credence to those who can identify that identifying information because of their experience and their role and from afar?
3:09:35 Yeah, first, thank you for clarifying the nature of the commonality there. 3:09:39 I thought you were leaving out Council President Dunphy for a second, uh, in your— the bald club there. 3:09:44 But, uh, secondly, um, yeah, to, uh, this is very similar to a conversation I had with, uh, one of the, the leadership at PPB about this, and it's exactly why the people doing the checking are police, because they would have that context and that experience and that potential ability to identify quickly. 3:10:05 I think it's fair to say that there are ways in which— that there's never going to be 0% trust or 100% trust, but there are things that we can do within the spectrum of 1 to 99% to increase trust. 3:10:17 One of the things is simply stating Here's why it wasn't worth continuing on with. 3:10:26 And it's not a box-checking exercise. 3:10:29 It's a qualitative description kind of thing. 3:10:33 And there are many things that can be— and that's why many things that can be looked at. 3:10:37 And that's why it says these criteria are illustrative and not designed to be a series of of steps or a checklist. 3:10:47 So yes to your question.
3:10:49 So I really appreciate this. 3:10:50 This has been a helpful dialogue. 3:10:52 And for those who are watching, I just, thanks for holding on with us. 3:10:57 So getting to kind of wrapping up here, and I'm gonna ask Robert Taylor, you're up next by the way. 3:11:06 So if you're in the room, please come up. 3:11:12 Councilor Kanal, given what I think I'm gonna hear again, which is similar to what he said earlier about supremacy and constitutionality and legally defensible, here's my question to you is, would it be potentially safer for the city and our public to do a 4138 compliant ordinance with a, with a more aspirational resolution to direct the, the administration, meaning like the chief and the CA, and to come up with some of the more prescribed parts, the parts of your ordinance that go a little above 4138. 3:11:58 And I say this because I think what he's going to say is 4138 has some parts that are going to— he's deemed Constitutional from his chair. 3:12:07 If the city comes into compliance with a state law and the state law is determined to be unconstitutional, I guess part of me says that's the state's problem. 3:12:21 Meaning we followed the state law, now the state's got to defend it. 3:12:23 Whereas if we go above and beyond, are we now putting ourselves in the first chair where we have to defend and And the state is playing second fiddle. 3:12:32 So I pose— maybe I don't want an answer. 3:12:35 I'm going to give you that rhetorically, and I'd like— maybe you can think about it. 3:12:38 But I'm wondering if there's the 4138 aspect that is the ordinance, and you could pare part of it down with an aspirational resolution, which I think is our role is to direct the development of internal policies, which most of the cities I think are doing internal policies.
3:12:56 I just want to consider that. 3:12:58 Now, Robert Taylor, I really need to hear very clear because you kind of put my hair on— well, the non-hair on back of my neck or whatever— on edge when you were answering Councilor Smith, right? 3:13:07 I took an oath about state constitution, United States Constitution, the city code laws to knowingly pass an ordinance that our city attorney is raising concern about I want to make sure I'm hearing you out from not a— we have a little bit of lawsuit risk here, but we have a recent federal appeals court, Ninth Circuit issue. 3:13:33 We have a constitutionality issue. 3:13:35 And your words 20 minutes ago were, as it currently stands, is unconstitutional. 3:13:43 I want to make sure I understood that and heard that correct. 3:13:46 That is, that is what you are conveying to us if we were to pass this today as it is Councilor Zimmerman, you're 20 minutes into this line of questioning. 3:13:55 Yeah, it's great, isn't it? 3:13:56 I'm hitting all the good points.
3:13:57 Well, uh, so Robert's Rules limits it to 10 minutes per speaker per motion.
3:14:01 Well, Robert's sitting over there.
3:14:03 Great, so please go ahead and wrap up.
3:14:08 Uh, thank you, Robert Taylor, City Attorney. 3:14:10 Council President, you are correct on the Robert's Rules time limit. 3:14:14 Um, on And on your point, yes, let me be clear. 3:14:19 Under the current Ninth Circuit ruling, it is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause to directly regulate federal law enforcement identification and masking.
3:14:31 And if this is passed and it was challenged, or we brought a lawsuit to challenge it, that would likely be held unconstitutional. 3:14:41 It would be severed from the code. 3:14:44 The remaining part of the code would be in effect. 3:14:48 And then from my perspective, what is important is that the decision makers who, who are in this room understand what might happen and that the public understands what might happen.
3:15:04 Okay, Councilor Knoll, I very much value the dialogue we just had. 3:15:09 Thank you. 3:15:10 Thank you. 3:15:10 I appreciate it. 3:15:12 Very concerning, but also thank you for that, um, Mr. Taylor.
3:15:18 Thank you. 3:15:19 Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. 3:15:20 Councilor Green.
3:15:22 Thank you, First Sergeant Dunphy. 3:15:26 Um, I hesitated to get in the queue because we're already what must be an hour and 20 minutes over time now at this point. 3:15:33 Um, and so I'm in the queue for 2 reasons. 3:15:35 One, to I just wanted to provide a brief statement of support. 3:15:38 I cannot wait to vote yes on the underlying of this amendment. 3:15:41 I think it's an important step for this city to take. 3:15:45 We've had extensive debate on the limitations of it, the risks of it, but we've also heard loudly that we need to use every tool that we have in our kit to show our community we're protecting them, keeping them safe.
3:16:02 There's a severability clause in this. 3:16:04 This does— adopting this does not mean we're doing something unconstitutional, by the way. 3:16:08 So there's an important nuance that you laid out there. 3:16:11 We know the risks.
3:16:14 I was not put in this office to not fight for the community that wants me to fight for them. 3:16:21 And so I was— I remember being at the bottom of, uh, at Toriliger Boulevard and And whatever the road that goes up to the VA hospital is, at a vigil after Alex Purdy was murdered by Department of Homeland Security agents, there were almost 1,000 Portlanders there, many of them from our district. 3:16:42 And they said, what are you doing to keep us safe? 3:16:44 And it wasn't just me, it was Congresswoman Maxine Dexter. 3:16:47 And we had a dialogue and we said, look, you can't regulate the federal government at the local level.
3:16:52 You can't do that.
3:16:53 I'm not saying that. 3:16:54 That's my job as a congresswoman to try to do that. 3:16:58 But the local level does have tools where we can sort of clarify the role of police in this and create expectations that people feel gives them clarity on who's operating in their city. 3:17:09 That's why I support this, and I just want to thank the sponsors of this ordinance. 3:17:13 I want to thank Councilor Pearl Guinea for working very closely with the carriers to try to find a path that gets you to yes.
3:17:20 I want to thank you, Councilor Novick, for— I know that you've spent a lot of time with these folks to try to improve this process. 3:17:27 So, and we've had a spirited debate, we've had a long conversation, and I just think at this point I would love to move on in our agenda. 3:17:36 And so I'm going to stop talking, and I hope the rest of us can be brief in the remainder of the night so we can actually get to the rest of the voting items tonight. 3:17:43 Thank you so much.
3:17:43 Thank you, Councilor Green. 3:17:45 Councilor Novick.
3:17:46 Thank you, Mr. President. 3:17:47 I will be brief. 3:17:49 Councilor Zimmerman, since Robert Taylor didn't say it expressly, if the 9th Circuit opinion holds up, 4138 is toast too. 3:17:59 Because what the 9th Circuit opinion said is that you cannot regulate the federal government's decisions as to when and whether or how to identify themselves, do not pass go, do not collect $200. 3:18:10 I think that we have good legal arguments that that panel was wrong, just like California did, just like the state lawyers did. 3:18:18 But there's no real distinction in the possible constitutionality of California versus the state versus us.
3:18:26 Thank you, Councilor Novick. 3:18:27 Councilor Kanal.
3:18:29 Thank you. 3:18:29 Just 4 quick points. 3:18:31 One is the state constitution also requires for us to follow state law that's in effect at the time that applies to us. 3:18:37 I think that's part of my oath too. 3:18:39 I agree with the broader comment on oaths, and I think that's a really important conversation where it's a little bit of a time where things are shifting and how we interpret those, and I recognize that. 3:18:51 I didn't get a chance to mention this earlier. 3:18:53 I forgot to, with relation to the administrative versus legislative aspect of it, I do think that most of what we're doing here is saying what to do and providing illustrations of how, but not Not requiring a certain how. 3:19:04 And so I know that there's an ongoing conversation in our new form of government about where the sort of vertical line is between the really high-level things and the really low-level things in terms of legislative to administrative. 3:19:15 And I think we attempted to, to, you know, uh, stay on the correct side of that, um, noting that we don't all agree on where the line is 100% of the time. 3:19:25 As it relates to the, the resolution question, but more broadly the question about Could this be ruled unconstitutional in part? 3:19:33 And I think this applies to could there be opposition in other contexts after the fact as well. 3:19:38 I think it's fair to say that. 3:19:39 I also think it's fair to point out that the fight hasn't been held yet. 3:19:44 And I don't like the idea of comparing every legislative action we take to a fight. 3:19:50 I think that's an overused trope. 3:19:52 And I also think that there are a few things that are fights. 3:19:55 I think ensuring that we are safe from the type of impersonation that has occurred where people have claimed authority they did not have and used it to rob, used it to detain, used it to kidnap, used it to sexually assault people is an important thing to do and important enough that I think the term fight does apply. 3:20:15 And when we're in a fight, we shouldn't give up on it before it's fought. 3:20:19 I'll leave it there. 3:20:19 Thanks.
3:20:20 Thank you, Councilor Kanal. 3:20:22 Councilor Avalos.
3:20:24 Thank you, colleagues. 3:20:25 I know we're running late, but I didn't want to miss the opportunity to add my voice in support of this ordinance. 3:20:30 As the daughter of immigrants representing one of the most diverse districts in Portland, I take this issue very seriously. 3:20:36 For many immigrant families, when someone is taken by law enforcement, families are often left with no information, no clarity, and no understanding of where their loved one was taken or even who took them in the first place. 3:20:47 That fear is very real in our communities, especially in East Portland. 3:20:51 At its core, this ordinance is about something very basic. 3:20:54 If someone is exercising the power to stop, detain, or arrest you, people have a right to know who you are. 3:21:00 Simple. 3:21:01 And importantly, the documentation provisions here are new, and they matter because they create a record and a level of accountability that communities, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, PERC, and immigrant advocates have been asking for.
3:21:14 So this ordinance stays within the authority that we have as a city, and what we can do to protect Portlanders, we should absolutely do. 3:21:21 I plan on supporting it. 3:21:23 Thank you.
3:21:23 Thank you very much, Councilor Avalos. 3:21:25 Councilor Murillo.
3:21:27 I want to say something, uh, similar to what Councilor Avalos just said, and I think this is an important discussion to have. 3:21:33 But to me, the most important part of this ordinance is that there— we can use the surveillance State, and we can use our police who are going to be tracking and monitoring where ICE is operating, their patterns of going into neighborhoods, what times they do it, how they are investigating, who they are taking into account, because all of that is tracked and then becomes a report that goes back to City Council, which is presented on, which is a public record. 3:22:04 There are community members that are organizing in the community. 3:22:07 Thank you. 3:22:08 Frankly, beyond the bounds of legality, that because they are not bound by that, but we are. 3:22:13 And that is the historic moment that we are in right now. 3:22:18 I understand that. 3:22:20 Look, I'm a Constitution Team scholar, national winner. 3:22:22 Okay? 3:22:23 I understand the Constitution. 3:22:24 I care about it, and I uphold it. 3:22:26 And if we always followed only if our courage only was held within the bounds of the law. 3:22:39 We are supposed to push on this, and this is a matter that is going to be litigated in federal court at some point or another. 3:22:47 Because if there is a situation where an immigrant who is, who is white is, for example, getting kidnapped by an ICE agent, would a police officer intervene because they would assume that that person isn't an immigrant?
3:23:01 Would a police officer intervene And vice versa, if a person of color who is an American citizen is being kidnapped by random people, would the police not intervene or investigate because they would assume that person is an immigrant and that those people are ICE? 3:23:15 This is going to end up being a court case at some point, at one point or another. 3:23:20 And the data tracking that we are doing is absolutely critical to make sure that the community has as much information as possible to deal with what's happening. 3:23:31 There are limits to the bureaucracy, but within the limits of that bureaucracy, we can use our state power to give people information to act. 3:23:41 Again, colleagues, I am literally beseeching you right now that if we were only to ever do what was in the bounds of the law or what was already legal based on prior precedent, then we would never move forward as a society. 3:23:58 We have a duty to push on this. 3:24:01 So I really appreciate the amendments that were made. 3:24:04 I will be the first to clarify in whatever video I make after this to the community what this accomplishes and doesn't accomplish. 3:24:12 But this does do something, and we have to use the tools that we have. 3:24:17 So I will strongly be supporting the underlying ordinance. 3:24:21 I think this should go all the way up to the Supreme Court, and, and we need to fight it out. 3:24:26 This is something that we have to try. 3:24:29 We don't have a lot of tools as a local government, but the tools that we do have, we have to try. 3:24:34 Thank you.
3:24:35 Thank you, Councilor Morillo. 3:24:36 Vice President Clark.
3:24:37 Thank you, Council President. 3:24:38 Councilor Morillo, that's a very compelling argument. 3:24:41 I appreciate that, and I am going to reserve the right to change my mind in the future. 3:24:48 Perhaps not today, but I'm curious to know where the mayor stands on this, if we can get some kind of intelligence, and where the chief of police stands on this. 3:25:01 Can we get an answer to that by any— from anyone? 3:25:07 Well, we have, we have, we have a second reading too. 3:25:09 Yeah, thank you. 3:25:11 The mayor's job is not— I'm sorry, under the charter authority Thank you, Councilor Smith.
3:25:30 Thank you, Council President. 3:25:34 The struggle is real and it's deadly when dealing with ICE. 3:25:37 I believe that ICE officers are not trained to deal with people in crisis.
3:25:40 Councilmember Herbold.
3:25:40 I think the officers are ruthless enforcers of the law. 3:25:45 They prioritize deportation quotas over compassion, and they also foster no compassion and a climate of fear within communities. 3:26:00 And for me, their actions are seen as lacking empathy, but it's more than that. 3:26:07 They are targeting vulnerable individuals and families, leaving behind a trail of emotional distress and destruction and disruption. 3:26:17 Many ICE agents uphold an inhumane system, contributing to the separation of families and the perpetuation of injustice. 3:26:27 And so as a result, we're here today. 3:26:31 ICE has fueled widespread Widespread protests nationwide and in Oregon and calls for reforms reflecting a significant mistrust. 3:26:41 And that's what we're seeing here. 3:26:43 We have a significant mistrust between ICE officers and the communities that they serve. 3:26:49 But we also have a bigger problem. 3:26:51 We have an administration and a Supreme Court that is — is allowing ICE to do the things that they do. 3:27:04 And until we change what's happening at the top, what we're doing on the local level, I don't think it's going to change anything. 3:27:13 But it is not lost on me who ICE is. 3:27:17 They're kidnappers. 3:27:19 They're killers. 3:27:21 We know that. 3:27:22 And they're dangerous.
3:27:24 And I'm afraid of them. 3:27:26 I'm afraid for my grandchildren. 3:27:31 I'm afraid for my son and his wife. 3:27:35 So for me, this is very, you know, it's something that I'm struggling with right now. 3:27:45 Because we've been talking about this for a long time.
3:27:51 Sanctuary cities, sanctuary counties, those kinds of things, they give people a certain feeling about government. 3:28:00 But I would like to talk to the chief of police and say to him, are you going to follow this ordinance? 3:28:10 If they don't feel like this ordinance is something they should follow, What are we doing? 3:28:18 What are we changing? 3:28:19 How do we change it? 3:28:21 Because you can't legislate good sense. 3:28:23 I'm going to tell you that. 3:28:25 And my mom was here for the last 2 weeks, and she said common sense is just not common anymore. 3:28:30 And I agree with her. 3:28:31 Thank you. 3:28:33 But this is something that I don't want our community councilors to feel that they have Any greater protections with these amendments in this actual ordinance than they do with the state law. 3:28:50 And I do agree that if, if it comes back, they're going to look at the state law and they're going to take away everything. 3:28:57 But right now, folks, we have a state law. 3:29:00 We have something that very few states have. 3:29:03 We have a great legislature, and I support them in what they did.
3:29:08 But I'm really struggling right now to decide whether or not this is just something that's performative. 3:29:14 It's going to actually make a difference. 3:29:16 The police are going to follow it. 3:29:18 Will they? 3:29:18 Won't they? 3:29:19 Will it make a change? 3:29:20 Will they, will they do, do all those things that we think they're going to do and they're going to direct and write things down? 3:29:27 I don't know. 3:29:27 I want to ask the chief of police, are you going to, in this budget cycle, set aside some officers that are going to be Dedicated specifically to do this reporting? 3:29:42 All the officers will do it. 3:29:46 Okay, will they? 3:29:48 Well, if they're obeying the law. 3:29:51 We're not. 3:29:53 We're not even letting the mayor break a tie. 3:29:56 So we have different— I'm not going to let y'all off on that. 3:30:01 So anyway, I'm struggling with this and I'm not sure right now.
3:30:06 Thank you, Councilor Smith. 3:30:08 Councilor Zimmerman.
3:30:11 Um, I, I am hoping maybe after this first reading to have a conversation with you, Councilor Murillo, and Councilor, uh, Kanal, with respect to— I think you're talking about the compliance and reporting aspect when you mentioned in your I appreciate that. 3:30:27 I appreciate that. 3:30:27 I appreciate your speech about data tracking and like where they're going and what they're doing. 3:30:30 I'll tell you what's not coming off the page to me is like where that is and what that, what that means. 3:30:37 And, and I do want to understand if before we get to a second reading and a vote, if this will direct a, a data tracking system. 3:30:47 So I want to talk more about that. 3:30:48 And I say that because I think this conversation, and I think frankly your, your ordinance I think this ordinance would be easier to pass and implement if, to your point, Councilor Kanal, you said sometimes people speak for us, third parties sometimes speak for us, but something got into the ether over the last couple of months to kind of say what this was versus what it wasn't. 3:31:16 And I think that's unfortunate. 3:31:17 And it was hard for me to listen to Portlanders who thought we had the magic pen here when we won't. 3:31:27 And at the same time, I don't want this to be negative because I still am very happy about 4138 and knowing that all law enforcement officers in the state of Oregon who go through DPSST and are certified by our standards in the state of Oregon will be identifiable by their agency, by their public, without masks, Mm-hmm. 3:31:48 I think that's an important thing that the state legislature took on, and I don't ever want that to be lost. 3:31:54 And so I definitely want to be supportive of, and I agree, I think with Councilor Clark's point, before the second reading, I too want to hear what the administration's take is on this new amendment. 3:32:07 This is a substantial change to it. 3:32:10 I appreciate the severability aspect that was brought up. 3:32:15 Um, because 4138 is a win that cannot be lost. 3:32:20 Like, that is a win for all Oregonians and all Portlanders. 3:32:23 And Portland Police were held up in writing that as the gold standard for how we do it. 3:32:28 And we're just— I think we're letting the desire maybe to go further shade the, the real big win on 4138. 3:32:37 And we should have— and Councilor Clark brought up, we might change our opinions later But we should have the talk about going further, et cetera. 3:32:43 But 4138 is a big win, and Willie Chotson and the representative in Southeast Portland was the leader there. 3:32:48 And I'm just, I hope for a couple more conversations, but thanks for the dialogue today. 3:32:53 I think I have what I need.
3:32:54 Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. 3:32:55 Councilor Kanal, last word. 3:32:58 Okay. 3:33:00 With that, I'm gonna move this item to second reading. 3:33:02 Could we please call item number 9?
3:33:07 Item 9, amend arts tax code to provide tax relief, promote sustainability of Arts Access Fund, define critical terms, and respond to community and audit recommendations. 3:33:17 Amend Code Chapter 6.10, document number 2026-147.
3:33:23 Colleagues, this is a continued first reading of our, uh, last hearing. 3:33:27 We heard testimony last time and, and continued the hearing. 3:33:31 I am going to be Actually, I'll look. 3:33:34 Yeah, there is an amendment on the table. 3:33:36 Councilor Kanal last week introduced an amendment. 3:33:39 I, working with Councilor Kanal and Pirtle-Guiney and Koyama Lane, we now have introduced Kanal, Dunphy, Pirtle-Guiney, Koyama Lane 1, which should be in your inboxes. 3:33:50 This amendment combines the suggestions of Kanal 1 with additional feedback from the current membership of the Arts Access Fund Oversight Committee.
3:33:59 The underlying ordinance proposes a range of possible committee membership sizes from 5 to 11. 3:34:03 Per Kanal 1, emerging citywide best practice is to have a fixed number of seats on advisory boards, in part to maintain a clear and predictable standard for quorum regardless of whether there are unfilled seats. 3:34:15 As such, this amendment moves to a fixed size for the oversight committee. 3:34:19 The executive committee of the Arts Access Fund Oversight Committee offered a few suggestions for improvement of this section. 3:34:24 Including reducing the size of the committee from 11 to 9 to ease quorum requirements and expanding the membership definitions of— from parents of K-5 students to parents of K-12 students in light of concerns that parents with very young children have greater difficulty participating in volunteer evening activities and may wish to engage with their committee as they grow older. 3:34:45 So the language is redlined and it should be in your inbox. 3:34:50 And I am moving Kanal, Dunphy, Pirtle-Guiney, Koyama Lane 1, and would entertain a second.
3:34:59 Councilor Koyama Lane seconds. 3:35:02 Colleagues, is there discussion of the amendment? 3:35:05 Councilor Kanal.
3:35:06 I'm not sure if I need to say this live because we moved it last time, but I do want to formally withdraw the previous amendment. 3:35:10 Oh, that's fine. 3:35:11 Apologies. 3:35:12 Just to get that on the record. 3:35:13 And I appreciate all the work that you have done, Council President, as well as the, the members of the committee for weighing in. 3:35:19 I support this. 3:35:19 Thanks.
3:35:20 Thank you very much. 3:35:22 Colleagues, any further discussion of the amendment? 3:35:26 Can we call a roll on Kanal, Dunphy, Pirtle-Guiney, Koyama Lane 1?
3:35:37 No. 3:35:39 Koyama Lane?
3:35:41 Aye. 3:35:42 Novick. 3:35:43 Aye. 3:35:44 Clark. 3:35:44 Aye. 3:35:45 Green. 3:35:46 Aye. 3:35:47 Zimmerman. 3:35:48 Aye. 3:35:48 Avalos. 3:35:49 Aye. 3:35:50 Smith. 3:35:51 Aye. 3:35:52 Dunphy. 3:35:52 Aye. 3:35:53 Amendment is approved with 11 aye, 1 nay vote.
3:35:56 Thank you, colleagues. 3:35:58 Colleagues, to the underlying— to the discussion of the underlying bill now. 3:36:06 Everyone's ready. 3:36:08 Councilor Zimmerman.
3:36:17 Um, I appreciate that there were some changes at the same time that there was an exemption for others, right? 3:36:30 I think that that moving off the $1,000 is an important topic. 3:36:35 In committee, I really was hoping that we could actually do what I thought committees were designed to do, which is work through some stuff. 3:36:40 But the committee chair just kind of took the vote, and I thought that was pretty unfortunate. 3:36:44 And I'll tell you, I just— I, I am not going to vote to raise taxes on a minimum wage Portlander by 42%. 3:36:54 I'm just not going to do it. 3:36:56 And I think that that was worthy of conversation. 3:37:01 Councilor Dan Ryan. 3:37:02 And we bundled it with the fixes I think that the revenue division has outlined in terms of just some of the silliness of how people file and things like that. 3:37:14 And while I want to be supportive of those changes, raising up that threshold at a time when affordability is becoming not the weekly topic but now the, the daily topic when I'm in the community And frankly, I don't know what the substantive difference is when you're talking about below minimum wage and a new tax. 3:37:37 I think that if you wanted to talk about where does it come in, you talk about a real number where it comes in, and you say, we admit as an organization, as a society, as a city, that we want this thing to kick in at— and then you name a number. 3:37:50 But if you go to minimum wage, I'm not doing that. 3:37:53 And so I—.
3:37:53 Councilor Dan Ryan.
3:37:55 I think that if there is a stomach for changing some of the other stuff, that you separate out the two. 3:38:01 But I find a tax raise right now on top of the TUF, on top of the utility fees, to be a thing that is just a bridge too far. 3:38:11 And frankly, not a city who has, I think, come far enough in terms of identifying what its core is before we just raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes. 3:38:19 Councilor Dan Ryan.
3:38:21 So I think I am in not just the minority, but a very deep minority, and I will be happy in my little deep minority there. 3:38:28 But I did have to just say that. 3:38:30 I know that there's a lot of passion around this, and I know that it provides great stuff in our community, which is why it was worthy of more conversation and more correct fixes than the time that we were given it at committee when it was rushed through to a vote after we expired in time.
3:38:47 Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. 3:38:48 Councilor Novick.
3:38:50 Thank you, Mr. President. 3:38:52 I think I might have seniority here in hating the arts tax because I was one of the few politicians who opposed it when it was on the ballot in 2012 because it's both administratively ridiculous and ridiculously regressive. 3:39:06 I appreciate the council president's effort to improve it, but I'm not going to be able to support something that still leaves us with with a goofy little standalone tax where people making $40,000 a year make— pay the same as people paying a million. 3:39:21 And I think that we should try to reform the arts tax in a way that gets rid of it as a standalone tax. 3:39:28 My preferred method would be to send out an early renewal of the children's levy and have it be a children and arts levy. 3:39:36 It largely serves children anyway and sort of add the arts tax into And that would eliminate the administrative cost of administering a standalone tax. 3:39:46 It would eliminate people's personal annoyance with having to pay an extra tax. 3:39:51 So that's something I'm going to come back and propose. 3:39:54 But again, I really appreciate the effort, but I think this is an example where the phrase putting lipstick on a pig is really unfair to pigs because pigs are smart and the arts tax is stupid.
3:40:05 Thank you. 3:40:06 Thank you, Councilor Novick. 3:40:08 Councilor Green.
3:40:11 Uh, thank you. 3:40:14 I always have to follow Councilor Novick right after he's made some joke, and I'm the sucker for, for bad jokes.
3:40:20 Um, that was not a joke, Councilor.
3:40:24 Anyway, it made me laugh. 3:40:25 Uh, I, I have a question for you, Council President. 3:40:27 So I just want to make sure I understand that this is a— this is net of deductions. 3:40:32 Right, this is your adjusted gross income, basically?
3:40:34 Okay, that's a very important thing to establish. 3:40:36 So if we don't— if we don't adopt this amendment, then, uh, we will keep in place a tax that has the highest burden rate for people who make the least amount of money in the city of Portland. 3:40:49 That's currently what happens. 3:40:50 Currently, if you make $1,000— and that's not, to my knowledge, net of deductions, that's $1,000 of gross income— Um, you're going to pay $35 a year. 3:41:01 And if we were to— and then, you know, I would pay $35 a year. 3:41:04 I make a lot more than that. 3:41:06 Um, and if we did adopt this, no, it's not perfect. 3:41:10 No, it's— it, you know, if I had my druthers, we would go out and we would tax the largest corporations for every last cent that we could get, and we would fund all of our great things with those revenues, and we would cut fees and utility rates for the city of Portland. 3:41:22 But I don't have my druthers What we do have is an opportunity to make this less regressive than it is, to provide relief to families or households that, you know, I bet a minimum wage filer after they filed their deductions would not have to pay this tax, but I'm not a tax expert. 3:41:40 The point I'm trying to make here is this makes it better for those of us who have the least in our community while also delivering arts programming for those that deserve that too. 3:41:49 Councilmember Dan Ryan. 3:41:50 And particularly our children in our schools. 3:41:52 And so I'm going to support it for that reason. 3:41:54 I think that we must have a broader conversation about revenue reform in this city. 3:42:00 It needs to be a partnership with Metro County. 3:42:02 It needs to be a partnership with the state of Oregon. 3:42:05 We have to come together and figure out who we want to tax in this state, because right now we're not taxing the wealthiest people in this state like we should. 3:42:12 And so we're, we're suffering for it. 3:42:14 So I'm going to support it.
3:42:14 Councilor Dan Ryan.
3:42:15 Thank you, Councilor Green. 3:42:16 Councilor Koyama Lane.
3:42:21 Thank you, Council President. 3:42:25 I do first want to acknowledge the concerns that I hear from constituents who wish that there were more tiers in this reform, opportunities for public feedback throughout the process. 3:42:36 I think that's really real and makes a lot of sense. 3:42:39 And I think, believe those concerns are valid. 3:42:43 I think it's important that we continue to be working with community and listening and talking about affordability, equity, and implementation. 3:42:50 I also know that there's a bit of a deadline. 3:42:53 We have to get this done by early June in order for this to apply to next tax season. 3:43:01 And because at this— knowing all of those things, I do think the reform moves us in a better direction. 3:43:06 It's going to relieve about 44% of current filers from paying for this, for this being an obligation. 3:43:15 And that means that significantly fewer people will be required to pay the arts tax. 3:43:21 I want to reiterate that it's not a new tax. 3:43:24 It's a reform of an existing tax. 3:43:26 And we know that it's been increasingly unsustainable over time. 3:43:32 I will say, as a mom and educator, I see every day How art is important to kids. 3:43:38 Helps kids think, express themselves, feel a sense of belonging. 3:43:43 And I really do believe that our tax policy should be supporting that. 3:43:49 And inflation is real. 3:43:51 The adjustment from $35,000 to $50,000 in order to account for inflation since 2012 is really important and isn't— I think it will stabilize funding and prevent major future cuts to our local arts organizations and to many art teachers who really do depend on this funding stream. 3:44:12 So this is kind of that multiple things can be true at the same time. 3:44:16 And I do think that this reform is important and it's about reducing who has to pay at that lower end and recognizing people's real financial constraints. 3:44:25 This conversation's not over.
3:44:28 And to me, this ordinance is about sustainability, fairness, and preserving access to the arts for current generations and future ones. 3:44:38 Council President and Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, I'm really proud to co-sponsor this with both of you, and thank you very much.
3:44:45 Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane. 3:44:47 Councilor Avalos.
3:44:50 Thank you. 3:44:51 Yeah, I'll reiterate what everyone has been saying. 3:44:55 I definitely think this is difficult at a time where affordability is really challenging, and I— but I appreciate the work that's been done to make this reform, especially to exempt many Portlanders. 3:45:10 I think it's important that we pause though on the fact that 44%, I think it was, is Portlanders that are making $20,000 or less or $40,000 or less joint files. 3:45:20 That, that is staggering to me. 3:45:23 And that to me, like, really explains the broader economic crisis that we're struggling with. 3:45:29 It's way beyond this arts tax, the broader affordability crisis. 3:45:34 And, you know, people are struggling with housing costs and groceries and utilities, and this explains it. 3:45:39 So I just want to zoom in on that because to Councilor Green's point, there are a lot of people who are struggling and we keep asking them for more and we're not asking for the people that have it.
3:45:51 For more. 3:45:52 So I think that this is an important step that we need to take to exempt those Portlanders, to sustain the fund, because arts education is important. 3:46:01 I was asked recently on an interview whether, like, what should people who don't have children, how they should feel about the arts tax and if they find that it has value. 3:46:12 And I said, absolutely it has value. 3:46:15 I don't have children, but I still deeply see the value and the impact of arts education because it really is something that creates opportunities for young people to dream and to imagine and to explore their creativity, build their confidence in themselves and in their voices. 3:46:29 And that matters for all of us as a society. 3:46:32 And I think that whether we have children or not, we have a responsibility to contribute to that for our next generation. 3:46:38 To quote James Baldwin, the children are always ours, every single one of them, all over the globe. 3:46:45 And so for those reasons, while I think there are still larger conversations we need to continue having about equity and affordability, I do plan to support this, and I thank the sponsors for putting us in the right direction towards that conversation. 3:46:59 Thanks.
3:47:00 Thank you, Councilor Avalos. 3:47:01 Councilor Ryan.
3:47:01 Yes, thank you, Council President. 3:47:03 I'm an enthusiastic arts supporter, and I'm a consistent supporter of children and youth. 3:47:08 I fought hard to get money into the PPS budget for arts as a school board member in the aughts. 3:47:12 It was really difficult. 3:47:14 We got some in. 3:47:16 My biggest takeaway, though, from this conversation is that this is exactly what we need to do. 3:47:19 This is the exact type of item that needs to go back to the voters to decide how they want to fund the arts moving forward since they adopted the original version at the ballot box in 2012. 3:47:31 Thus, on principle, to no one's surprise, I cannot support this process to increase taxes from the dais. 3:47:37 This should be decided by the voters. 3:47:39 Thanks.
3:47:40 Thank you, Councilor Ryan. 3:47:41 Vice President Clark.
3:47:43 Thank you, Council President. 3:47:45 The arts tax, totally annoying. 3:47:49 Very annoying to have to deal with it every year. 3:47:53 And it's a ridiculous threshold. 3:47:54 $1,000? 3:47:56 You've got to be kidding. 3:47:58 So we've simplified it, as Councilor Green mentioned. 3:48:03 We've recognized income disparity, which is, I think, a point that Councilor Avalos was trying to make, which is a much bigger issue than just Portland and Oregon. 3:48:09 I think that's a fair point.
3:48:12 But colleagues, I'm here today on this dais because of the arts. 3:48:19 Um, I've told you a little bit about my background, not all of it, but as a young person, it was the arts that got me to college and the arts that got me a scholarship to college. 3:48:31 So when I think about the arts tax, I think about all those young people who will succeed through the arts who will rise up out of their beginnings and be successful. 3:48:43 So I appreciate the leadership of President Dunphy, who's been working on this for multiple years. 3:48:50 The effort to reform it, I think, is a good one, and I will be a yes vote.
3:48:54 Thank you, Vice President Clark. 3:48:55 Councilor Kanal.
3:48:58 Thank you. 3:48:58 I, I believe we're technically in the discussion of the amendment still.
3:49:04 No, we passed that.
3:49:05 Okay, yeah, I'm mistaken.
3:49:06 I just— yeah, it's been going. 3:49:08 I, I think this is— yeah, my mistake. 3:49:11 I first wanted to say I really appreciated the, uh, reminder of the Baldwin quote, um, because the remainder of that is, um, something to the effect of, and I'm beginning to suspect, that anyone who is incapable of recognizing that is incapable of morality, or something to that effect.
3:49:28 And I am beginning to suspect that whoever is incapable of recognizing this may be incapable of morality.
3:49:33 Thanks for sharing the rest of it.
3:49:34 Oh, I cut it off because of time.
3:49:36 Yeah, no, I, I, but I think it is a question of we, we, um, taxes are the price we pay for civilization, and this is a part of that, I think. 3:49:45 Having said that, I agree completely that $1,000 is ridiculous. 3:49:49 I'm really open to longer-term conversations around this. 3:49:51 I think this, this ordinance as a whole Makes it significantly better. 3:49:56 And I guess the question is, you know, how— it's not incrementalism in the sense of very small. 3:50:01 It is a significant step. 3:50:03 It also does not address all the underlying issues. 3:50:05 And I think that the sponsors have been very, very upfront about that. 3:50:09 I wanted to highlight 610120 as a really important thing where we actually put into our code Consumer Price Index adjustments.
3:50:19 And we are building that up both on the rate Yes. 3:50:22 And on the amount of income that, that is necessary to make in order to have to pay this. 3:50:29 I think that we will likely end up moving this piece of code to another area and having several other pieces of code reference it at some point because we need to be doing this for a lot of our taxes, whatever particular purpose they serve. 3:50:47 So I just wanted to highlight that because it hadn't been mentioned yet, but I'm I'm broadly supportive of this and also recognize that it is not the end of the conversation.
3:50:55 Thank you, Councilor Kanal. 3:50:56 Councilor Smith.
3:50:58 Thank you, Council President. 3:51:01 I like the art tax. 3:51:03 I think this— it's important. 3:51:05 I do. 3:51:07 And, um, I think it's important for our young people to have art in their life. 3:51:13 And if any of you follow me on social media, you'll probably see the majority of stuff that that I do is around my grandchildren. 3:51:21 And I think it's, it's so important. 3:51:25 Uh, people who have art in their world and music, they have a higher rate of going to, um, to college.
3:51:36 But the other piece that I'm also struggling with right now is that this was a voter-approved Uh, tax, and I think it needs to go back to the voters. 3:51:50 Uh, I asked the question last week of Robert Taylor. 3:51:54 Um, there are increases that happen automatically without coming back to either council or to the public, and I don't know how this measure— how it lines up with the, um, the children's levy If the same thing is true of the children's levy, could we just put in a different policy in code and increase the children's levy? 3:52:21 I think the real big issue here is Oregon does not have a sales tax, and that's what we're dealing with right here. 3:52:28 And no one wants to really have that question. 3:52:30 And I'd like these great minds that sit up here to figure out a way that that is a conversation In the bigger conversation of how do we pay for things. 3:52:41 I think our property taxes are higher because we don't have those things, but we're taxing people. 3:52:47 And this has to probably be the most tax-happy city council that I've seen in a long time. 3:52:52 The water tax, the TUF tax, the this tax, that tax. 3:52:58 My district, the average household makes about $60,000 a year. 3:53:05 They cannot afford all these little bitty taxes. 3:53:09 I mean, we're just nickel and diming them to death. 3:53:13 And I think that we need to be very clear. 3:53:18 And I really have a lot of respect for the sponsors of this, of this measure, because they do think about people. 3:53:25 They care about people. 3:53:26 They care about diversity. 3:53:27 They care about housing equity and all those things. 3:53:29 And, and And we all have that in common. 3:53:33 But I think that at one point we have to get very creative and not be lazy about looking at our current budget and how we can pay for things. 3:53:46 It's easy to get low-hanging fruit and say, oh, I'll increase that because that's easy. 3:53:51 Oh, I'll take that away because that's easy. 3:53:54 I really want us to really be very, um, curious and have a, a rigorous understanding of our budget. 3:54:06 Because I believe there are things in our budget and there are ways to pay for stuff that you want to pay for, whether it be arts or other things that we already have in our budget, but we just have not got the total command of it yet. 3:54:19 And the easy thing to do is, oh, let's talk to operations, let's figure out a tax And that's not the way to go, especially when this was put on the ballot. 3:54:29 And I know you know about this, Councilor Novick. 3:54:31 This is very personal. 3:54:34 So, um, I'm just— I, I appreciate what, what you did because, Councilor Dunphy, I remember we were at a campaign event in 2024 and we sat on that stage in downtown at that place. 3:54:49 I can't Call the name of the, um, it's over in, uh, Northwest. 3:54:54 And he said, he was asked the question, he said, I am going to change the art tax. 3:55:01 And he is making good on his promise. 3:55:05 And so I appreciate you following up and really doing that. 3:55:08 I remember that you said that, and, um, I was like, oh wow, that's very ambitious. 3:55:13 I, I probably wouldn't say that out the first thing out of the gate that I was going to do a tax. 3:55:19 But I appreciate it. 3:55:21 I understand it. 3:55:22 And I know the history of this. 3:55:24 And I think it's good. 3:55:27 I like the art tax. 3:55:28 And I can pay some more art tax. 3:55:29 I can pay $100. 3:55:31 But I just don't think this is the right way to do what we're doing right now. 3:55:35 Thank you.
3:55:36 Thank you, Councilor Smith. 3:55:37 Councilor Morillo.
3:55:40 Thank you, Councilor Dunphy. 3:55:42 I think this is very simple. 3:55:44 Arts are good, arts tax bad and inequitable. 3:55:48 This amendment makes it slightly more equitable, but we should also be taxing the rich, and unfortunately we can't do that at the local level, so we are stuck trying to do TUFs and things like that to create sidewalks. 3:55:58 We are stuck trying to fund the arts in ways that we should frankly be able to do in other ways. 3:56:04 I am very glad to hear that my colleagues care about the will of the voters, I hope we keep that in mind for the Portland Clean Energy Fund, and I'm also glad that people care about sending things to the ballot because maybe we can do that for MOTA as well. 3:56:16 So I will be supporting this. 3:56:18 Thank you.
3:56:19 Councilor Morillo. 3:56:21 Colleagues, thank you for your comments. 3:56:23 I want to just say I, on the one hand, absolutely agree. 3:56:28 Everybody— affordability is an enormous challenge right now, and everybody is suffering for reasons that are within government control and reasons that are outside of I— if I were inventing a way to pay for arts teachers and the arts in the city, I would not do it the way the arts tax is set up. 3:56:46 And I fully agree, Councilor Novick, that we are in many ways putting lipstick on a pig. 3:56:52 This is a voter-approved tax that we are trying to meet the moment with. 3:56:57 There were some real challenges with how it was originally implemented, to the point where The former city councils have on 5 separate occasions taken legislative action to help change the language that was approved by voters and make it sustainable, including the $1,000 exemption. 3:57:15 So as has been said, Portlanders love art, Portlanders love kids, everyone hates the arts tax. 3:57:24 We are doing as best as we can to try and make this less annoying and sustainable for the future, long-term, and, uh, will continue to demonstrate the will of what the voters originally passed. 3:57:36 And if we can come up with something else that is more robust and easier to pay and, uh, accomplishes the same things, I am very open to those conversations. 3:57:44 So seeing no one else in the queue for discussion, we're— this item now moves to second reading. 3:57:54 Thank you, Councilor Herbold. 3:57:55 That concludes our public comment meeting. 3:57:55 Can we please call item 10?
3:57:58 Item 10, authorize water revenue bonds to finance water system capital improvements for an amount sufficient to produce net proceeds of up to $525 million to refund outstanding water revenue bonds. 3:58:11 Document number 2026-134.
3:58:15 We have Claire Adamsick from Council Ops here to give us a committee staff summary. 3:58:20 This is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance. 3:58:23 Claire, take it away.
3:58:24 Thank you, Council President and councilors. 3:58:25 Again, for the record, Claire Adamsick, Council Policy Analyst and staff to the Public Works Committee. 3:58:30 The ordinance before you, document number 2026-134, was heard in the Public Works Committee on April 14th, where it was referred to full council with a recommendation to pass. 3:58:40 The ordinance authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds pursuant to ORS 287A.150 Thank you. 3:58:47 The ordinance authorizes the city to issue revenue bonds in the amount of $525 million to pay for system improvements to the city's water system, plus additional amounts required to fund bond reserves to pay capitalized interest and costs related to the financings. 3:59:00 The total principal amount of revenue bonds required for these services is not estimated to exceed $530.5 million. 3:59:07 Bonds authorized by the ordinance are special obligations of the city payable solely from the city's water system revenues. 3:59:13 The ordinance also authorizes the issuance of refunding bonds pursuant to applicable Oregon statutes and to refinance any revenue bonds issued in accordance with the ordinance provisions to provide interim financing and, if conditions warrant, to refinance any of the city's outstanding water revenue bonds to obtain debt service savings or achieve a favorable reorganization of outstanding bonds. 3:59:36 Finally, the ordinance describes the actions that may be taken upon passage and the effective date of the ordinance by the authorized officer or another individual designated by the city administrator, uh, on behalf of the city, on behalf of the city, and without further council action. 3:59:52 The full impact statement on this item includes information on financial and budgetary impacts and analysis and community impacts and community involvement. 4:00:00 One person testified during the committee meeting on April 14th, and no one submitted written testimony prior to committee action on the The general themes of the testimony the committee heard included concern regarding the amount of debt issuance proposed and adverse impacts to ratepayers, and consideration of comprehensive plan anti-displacement policies and other equity-focused city policies in investment decisions. 4:00:23 And that concludes the committee staff summary. 4:00:24 Thank you.
4:00:25 Thank you very much, Claire. 4:00:27 Vice President Clark, this came out of your committee. 4:00:30 Any remarks?
4:00:31 Just very briefly, We did have a very thorough discussion of the project, the project evolution, the budget's evolution, the cost controls that have been put in place by this administration, and the creation of an oversight committee to monitor the project. 4:00:53 But these bonds are critical to continuing to build out the water filtration plant. 4:00:59 But it was a very thorough discussion in our Thank you, Councilor Clark.
4:01:07 Colleagues, there are 24 people signed up to testify on this item. 4:01:11 It is my priority to get through testimony before we get to technical or clarifying comments and council discussion, but we do have to get through the first reading today and move this on to second reading. 4:01:21 So, uh, I'd like to call up our, our first panel of testimony, please.
4:01:27 Councilmember John Fall, Samuel Diaz, Charles Siko, Kelly Landsbaugh, and Liz Levinson. 4:01:42 Charles is online. 4:01:47 Thank you. 4:01:49 Uh, Oh, sorry, John Fall is on line too. 4:01:56 John, you can unmute.
4:01:57 Yeah, I've unmuted, and I haven't been on Zoom in 5 years because I loathe it, so, uh, I don't know how to operate the video.
4:02:06 You're doing great.
4:02:07 Thanks. 4:02:08 Um, first, I want to— uh, here we go. 4:02:12 Uh, second, what Jesse Atkins said during public comment, um, about Basically, the fees and taxes are just becoming unsustainable. 4:02:26 And as Councilor Smith just said, you are nickel and diming us. 4:02:29 I've recently testified twice against the street repair tax being added to water bills. 4:02:36 Yes, the streets need to repair, but that tax is unimaginative and inequitable. 4:02:40 But the other reason I testified against that tax is because I knew. 4:02:44 The flood mitigation increase was coming to water bills along with increases due to the Bull Run fiasco. 4:02:51 I have never been against needed taxes, but the Bull Run and the Water Bureau are fiascos. 4:02:59 You may have read the article in today's Oregonian regarding the percentage of people considering leaving Portland due to high taxes and fees. 4:03:06 As it happens, after you added the road repair fee to our water bills, my partner and I began to contemplate 2-year and a 5-year plan to move away from here. 4:03:18 Once you have finished hollowing out the economic center, who do you think neighborhood associations serve on neighborhood coalitions, chair land use committees, and volunteer untold hours to help business districts recover from the next recession? 4:03:32 Not your billionaire basketball buddies, I assure you. 4:03:37 Finally, So the Water Bureau itself is a fiasco, and I'll just come back for the second reading since the time was cut Kafkaesque-like from 2— 3 minutes to 2 minutes. 4:03:49 But I'm completely opposed to the fiasco that the Water Bureau is putting on all of us.
4:03:58 Thank you so much for being here today.
4:04:04 Okay, good evening, Council.
4:04:05 I'm Sam Diaz, Executive Director I'm here to deliver testimony on behalf of TAP, Together for an Affordable Portland. 4:04:13 In response to Bull Run, TAP advocates for water affordability, accountability, and alternatives that work. 4:04:18 We can satisfy the EPA mandate with a renewed waiver thanks to a near-pristine primary source and a strong secondary water source, which we're on right now. 4:04:27 Council should have a full and fair opportunity to also discuss backup options to treat Cryptosporidium, and let's recognize we have multiple ways to achieve that.
4:04:35 Today represents an opportunity for our city to fix what was broken in the old form of government.
4:04:40 Bureau of fiefdoms, black box project management, cost overruns from missing project elements, in this case, 7 miles of pipeline, and based on reporting, a revolving door between former city staff and the firms that they go to who, quote unquote, score City Water Bureau contracts. 4:04:55 We have heard very real concerns if we don't challenge the old way of doing things.
4:05:00 Continued uncertainty about whether the project is $2.56 billion or over $4 billion.
4:05:04 A nursery farmer who hasn't had water for over two months from Conduit Four, local residents who are concerned about dynamite blasting, and the dominoes that fall when water rates are more than doubled. 4:05:15 We are here because it is not too late into the project to adapt with new information in this new form of government, with new leadership and staff, and new leadership in elected office. 4:05:24 We respectfully urge you to amend the water revenue bond amount down to only include the amount required, and hold an emergency work session for City Council that details.
4:05:39 Charles, you can go ahead online.
4:05:43 Hello, uh, Charles Siko on behalf of Multnomah County Rural Fire Protection District 10. 4:05:51 We recognize that today you are struggling with the massive impact this filtration project will have on your ratepayers. 4:05:58 However, the financial ramifications extend beyond your city boundaries. 4:06:03 In our case, your project has or will in the future impact district funding by the removal of multiple properties from the tax rolls and the inevitable reductions in the value of properties located proximate to this project. 4:06:19 At the same time, 7 years of construction and ongoing operation of this industrial plant represents a substantial addition to our coverage responsibility. 4:06:30 A few examples: 1 million-plus construction-related trips on rural roads combined with lengthy road closures and detours, 8 different health and safety hazards for Water Bureau staff once the plant is operational, approximately 1,000 deliveries of hazardous chemicals every year.
4:06:51 These hazards will require emergency response when accidents occur.
4:06:56 As it stands now, the Water Bureau will pay absolutely nothing for vital emergency services that this plant requires. 4:07:05 The impacts of this filtration plant is an exceptional and unfair burden for Fire District 10. 4:07:11 If construction continues, we are asking that you join us in a good faith negotiation to determine. 4:07:18 An equitable annual fee for the emergency services FD10 will be providing to your facility for generations to come.
4:07:30 Thank you very much.
4:07:32 Kelly Landsbaugh, Liz Levinson, Jeremy, Jeremy Bosseley-Smith, Rosalyn Poton, David Sweet, Gilbert Devine, Jeremy's online. 4:07:47 You can go ahead. 4:07:55 Jeremy, you can unmute and, and begin testimony.
4:08:03 Good afternoon, councilors. 4:08:05 This issue takes me back to my first Portland City Council meeting 5 years ago.
4:08:11 I heard someone go up and they testified about this project, and it's the project I've heard testified about most consistently in my 5 years out here in Portland. 4:08:21 For me, I've worked on many capital projects. 4:08:24 I've worked actually for Kiewit, which is one of the contractors in this joint venture, and something I know about them is they have high turnover rate. 4:08:32 They also will bid jobs low so they can get them, and then they change order Over and over again until you know we end up in the situation that we're in. 4:08:42 I worked on a huge public works project like this back in D.C., where it started out at two billion, and by the time it was finally done, it was six billion. 4:08:50 So we know Portlanders are already super squeezed at the moment. 4:08:54 Doubling the prices over the next decade—it's only going to make it worse. 4:08:58 Municipalities are pulling out of the Portland Water Bureau service area. 4:09:01 It's going to burden. 4:09:03 Us even more, those of us that still are in it. 4:09:06 And this money, at the end of the day, it needs stipulations. 4:09:09 Really, we should pause funding until the joint venture can provide a schedule on how they're going to get this done and how there aren't going to be additional costs.
4:09:18 $525 Million is a lot to put on Portland Water Bureau ratepayers.
4:09:24 So this is a tough situation.
4:09:26 It's not something that any of you asked for, and you were not set set up for success by previous councils. 4:09:33 When projects, they get out of control like this, it really hurts efforts to municipalize some of our other utilities and it erodes public trust.
4:09:41 So we need to see the schedule and budget. 4:09:43 Definitely pause the funding for this at this moment. 4:09:48 And yeah, make sure that if it does go beyond schedule, that there are liquidated damages. 4:09:53 Thank you.
4:09:54 Thank you very much.
4:09:57 You can go ahead at the table.
4:10:00 My name is Liz Levinson and I live in District 2. 4:10:04 I am here today to urge you not to approve additional water revenue bonds to finance the Bull Run Filtration Project, which now exceeds $2.5 billion. 4:10:14 Portland families are stretched to the limit between recently approved electric, gas, and water rate hikes, ever-increasing property taxes and an already high income tax burden, Portland is becoming less and less affordable for middle-income families. 4:10:29 I am a lifelong Portlander. 4:10:30 I was born in Northeast Portland and raised in both Northeast and Northwest Portland. 4:10:35 My husband was born and raised in Inner Southeast. 4:10:38 We are now raising our own family in Northeast in a 2-income household, and our children attend PPS. 4:10:44 We want to stay in the city and continue to raise our children here as long as we can afford it. 4:10:49 However, increasingly it feels like this city views families like ours primarily as a revenue source for every new project the city wants to pursue, and as a result, this city is becoming less and less affordable. 4:11:02 When this project was first discussed in 2017, the estimate was around $500 million. 4:11:07 It has now ballooned into a $2.5 billion megaproject with no clear ceiling in sight, and How does the city plan to pay for it? 4:11:14 The city itself has admitted that the repayment plan rests on ratepayers. 4:11:18 In other words, Portland residents. 4:11:20 This is not just a homeowner issue. 4:11:22 Water rate increases of 6 to 8% per year will raise rents as well in a city already viewed by many residents as costing too much while delivering too little in return. 4:11:32 At what cost does this project become unacceptable? 4:11:35 Where is the transparent analysis comparing alternatives like UV treatment, phased implementation, or redesigning the scope of the project. 4:11:43 Please stop treating Portland residents like an open wallet. 4:11:46 Portlanders deserve transparent cost ceilings, independent oversight, and protection from endless utility increases. 4:11:53 I beg you, please do not approve additional bonds to support this boondoggle of a project. 4:11:59 Thank you.
4:11:59 Thank you very much.
4:12:05 Greetings, councilors. 4:12:06 For the record, my name is Rose Podent.
4:12:08 I'm the water justice coordinator at Verde and a community member here in Portland. 4:12:13 Verde builds environmental wealth through social enterprise advocacy and a deep commitment to water affordability and equitable infrastructure. 4:12:22 Today you are considering issuing over half— or $525 million in water revenue bonds for the Bull Run Filtration Plant, a project that is now about $2.5 billion. 4:12:34 We're here to express concerns regarding the escalating costs and the lack of comprehensive equitable financing strategy. 4:12:42 First, there is an unsustainable burden on ratepayers. 4:12:46 Verde works closely with community members who tell us one thing consistently: utility rates are already too high. 4:12:53 Families are making impossible trade-offs between water, housing, and food. 4:12:58 Our engagements show a deep pattern of anxiety. 4:13:01 People are Already rationing water use or missing payments entirely. 4:13:06 Under this current plan, rates are projected to increase about 9.8% annually for the next decade, which effectively doubles the water bills in less than 10 years. 4:13:16 This isn't just a line item. 4:13:19 It is a direct threat to financial security and well-being of Portland's most vulnerable households. 4:13:25 Second of all, well, we need a different solution that won't Increase water rates. 4:13:31 Uh, thank you for your time and consideration.
4:13:34 Thank you very much.
4:13:37 Curtis French, Tamara Winsank, Rod Park, Andres Mendoza, Devin Ruiz. 4:13:51 Rod's online. 4:13:51 Rod, you can unmute and go ahead.
4:13:56 Um, my name is Rod Park.
4:13:57 I, uh, operate a nursery out in the Boring area that's near the water treatment plant to be constructed. 4:14:03 I'm also a former Metro councilor representing the eastern portion of Portland and the areas east of Multnomah County, cities of Gresham and Wood Village, Fairview, etc. 4:14:13 I think I bring a background and perspective of these large regional decisions as the ones, uh, that just don't affect Portland residents. 4:14:20 It also affects surrounding Urban areas and rural ones as well.
4:14:25 Many, like I, had to decide regarding where the region should grow.
4:14:29 You're being asked to consider the future cost of water. 4:14:32 I've heard it now estimated if the current course continues, the estimated rate will increase and almost double in the next 8 to 10 years. 4:14:41 I've been told that Portland has to take action or be out of compliance with water quality standards. 4:14:46 But is this the only action, or can others be like ultraviolet light Thank you. 4:14:49 I think that might suffice. 4:14:51 There's time to change course. 4:14:52 Money spent on the current plan is not a reason to continue the same course. 4:14:57 I'm also a private pilot.
4:14:58 I set course for a destination.
4:15:00 I use the best information possible before taking off. 4:15:03 However, things can change— weather, etc., a whole host of variety of things. 4:15:09 That does not mean I continue on just because, uh, I set the course.
4:15:15 I continue because I flew the previous, uh, previous miles. 4:15:20 I make adjustments, plot a new course as new information or circumstances change.
4:15:25 I'm asking you to consider what new information you have received, such as the cost of the project, the federal requirements, and whether options are available. 4:15:33 Thank you.
4:15:34 Thank you very much.
4:15:38 My name is Tammy Wensink. 4:15:40 Resiliency is how this project is being sold. 4:15:43 Last week, when the South Shore wells were activated, Director Lu publicly stated that our water system is designed for resilience because we have 2 high-quality drinking water sources. 4:15:52 The well fields handle storms, floods, fires, and infrastructure problems. 4:15:57 That is resiliency. 4:15:58 The plant will filter microscopic organisms, not sizable particulate. 4:16:03 If a forest fire loads our watershed with debris, the new plant can't handle it, and we'd switch to the well field anyway. 4:16:08 Thank you. 4:16:09 This project is not adding resiliency. 4:16:11 We already have it. 4:16:13 Dynamite blasting, a new cost that is not fully represented in the current budget. 4:16:16 They keep hitting more boulders and rock, which means more blasting, more risk, more cost. 4:16:21 A local hydrologist says this blasting could collapse the dewatered layers and compromise the structural integrity of the entire area and could even drain the aquifer that feeds hundreds of homes and farms in the area. 4:16:32 Seismic damage to homes, wells, and roads is a known risk and a huge legal liability. 4:16:38 These are catastrophic costs that would cost the city millions to billions. 4:16:42 As we've seen with many adjustments to the project already, there are no assurances it won't happen. 4:16:48 None of this information is in the budget you're seeing, and these exceptionally and exponentially rising costs are not going to magically disappear and end here. 4:16:57 We're only 30% complete at best. 4:17:00 Prior council approved this project, and you're being handed selective curated information by the Water Bureau. 4:17:05 We're here to fill in the missing pieces for you. 4:17:08 Don't let this continue unchecked and become the straw that breaks Portland's back. 4:17:12 Deny the bonds, pause the project, demand an independent audit. 4:17:16 Thank you.
4:17:17 Thank you very much.
4:17:19 Devin, you can go ahead online.
4:17:23 Good evening, council. 4:17:24 My name is Devin Ruiz. 4:17:25 I live in District 2, and I'm a registered lobbyist for NextStep. 4:17:29 We are a nonprofit organization that works to amplify the voice and leadership of diverse young people to achieve a more just and equitable Oregon. 4:17:36 We know firsthand the struggle our young people are facing with securing sustained and affordable housing. 4:17:41 The rising cost of utilities each year plays a huge role in the feasibility of young people continuing to live in or move to Portland in the future. 4:17:49 If the Bull Run Filtration Plant moves forward as is and these water revenue bonds are approved without Without direction for an alternative course, Portland water ratepayers will need to be ready to absorb at least 10% increases each year for the next 10 years. 4:18:06 We do not support the last-minute proposed water rate increases for fiscal year 26-27 because it locks in these increases for the next 10 fiscal years at minimum. 4:18:16 Next up is leading Metro's Future Vision Youth Committee, who will shape the future of this region. 4:18:22 Their top issue priorities are affordability and climate resiliency and preparedness. 4:18:26 This decision, if it goes forward, will stunt the growth of the region and create numerous barriers for young people. 4:18:32 We believe ratepayer increases should be a fraction or a match of building preparedness. 4:18:37 Putting the entire fiscal burden of these large multi-billion dollar efforts defeats the major goal of resiliency planning, building stronger communities in the face of changing conditions. 4:18:47 We urge City Council to amend the water revenue bond amount to only include the amount required for maintenance of existing city infrastructure and explore options proposed by TAP. 4:18:57 I will submit my full remarks as written testimony. 4:19:00 Thank you.
4:19:01 Thank you very much.
4:19:04 Randall Friesen, Elizabeth Linder, Joe Bond, Katie Farrell, Anjanette Banuelos-Bolanos. 4:19:13 You can go ahead at the table.
4:19:16 Great. 4:19:16 Good evening, everybody. 4:19:17 I'm Randall Friesen with the Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council. 4:19:20 Thank you for all your time and your consideration.
4:19:23 I'm here today on behalf of over 16,000 union construction professionals to express our strong support for the issuance of bonds to fund the necessary cost adjustments for the Bull Run Filtration Project. 4:19:34 Last year's project delays and construction pause directly disrupted Thank you.
4:19:37 This project has disrupted over 400 local families and numerous small businesses reliant on this work.
4:19:43 Deferring or rejecting this bond issuance will inevitably escalate the final projection costs, creating a less-for-more scenario for Portland ratepayers, and could add further damage to small contractors still recovering from the previous past due pause due to no fault of their own.
4:20:00 With the city already in the middle of construction and contracts released, this This would cause additional litigation for breach of contract, adding further costs and further delays. 4:20:08 The past couple of years, we have seen several settlements paid by the city in construction project litigation, which in most, if not all, cases were completely avoidable.
4:20:17 At a time when Portland must act as an economic driver for the state, institutional delays undermine economic recovery and send a discouraging signal to outside businesses looking to invest in our region.
4:20:28 Councilmember To remain competitive and demonstrate that Portland is a stable, forward-moving city for development, the council must finalize this business and prevent further costly project extensions.
4:20:38 Here at the council, we are committed to working with some of the groups that you've heard today to help advocate and find different funding mechanisms to help backfill some of these losses, right? 4:20:48 I think there's an opportunity to have federal and state funding, and we're here to help support that. 4:20:57 Thank you very much.
4:20:58 You can go ahead at the table.
4:21:01 Thank you. 4:21:02 My name is Elizabeth, resident in District 1. 4:21:05 The current Bull Run Filtration Plant proposal, now a multi-billion dollar project, does not reflect the full range of viable water treatment options available to us. 4:21:17 There are proven, less expensive, and less invasive alternatives That the Portland Water Bureau has not meaningfully evaluated despite repeated community requests. 4:21:27 According to TAP Coalition and water treatment experts, the city could pursue options such as ultraviolet treatment, a widely used and EPA-recognized method that disinfects water without chemicals at a fraction of the cost of full filtration. 4:21:44 2, Smaller, more appropriately scaled treatment facilities Located closer to the communities that receive the water, reducing costs and impact. 4:21:54 There is a site that exists that is already owned by the city of Portland near Palbut.
4:21:59 By moving the project to the site, we will immediately reduce costs to the project and cease the destructive impact to the communities Cottrell and Pleasant Home. 4:22:08 Option three: resuming robust water testing and transparent reporting, which would allow the city to tailor treatment to.
4:22:14 Actual conditions rather than building the most expensive system possible just in case. 4:22:20 Before moving forward, the city must fully evaluate lower-cost alternatives including UV treatment and smaller-scale facilities, provide transparent, accessible public information about the true costs, risks, trade-offs, and trade-offs of each option, and center impacted communities both rural near the construction site and the Portlanders who are already struggling to pay our bills.
4:22:42 Thank you very much. 4:22:46 Joe, you can go ahead online.
4:22:52 Good evening, uh, members of the City Council. 4:22:54 My name is Joe Bond. 4:22:56 I'm an electrician of 14 years along with being a member and business representative of IBEW Local 48. 4:23:02 I'm speaking in support of the approval of the bond issuance for the Bull Run Water Filtration Project. 4:23:07 This facility is needed for multiple One being a much-needed infrastructure project for the region in order for the community to have access to adequate amounts of clean drinking water. 4:23:17 Another being the needed jobs for our region in this economic downturn. 4:23:21 Not only does this project give the ability to increase the capacity of clean drinking water, but also increase capacity for safety reasons when needed. 4:23:29 This bond is needed due to the six-month delay in the project last year. 4:23:34 The most affordable time to build. 4:23:36 Build this facility is right now. 4:23:38 Delaying only makes things more expensive. 4:23:40 This project is also helping provide family wage jobs and training opportunities for craft people from the Portland metro area. 4:23:47 Delaying this project further will only increase costs, hurt the workers who are currently there, and any that will be there in the near future. 4:23:54 Also, if this project doesn't get done or is delayed, it may create problems with the EPA, which may lead to possible fines. 4:24:06 I strongly urge the passing of this bond to keep the project moving and keep people working to help bolster the region in a multitude of ways. 4:24:13 Thank you for allowing time to comment on this.
4:24:16 Thank you very much.
4:24:30 Oh, and sorry, Katie Farrell actually joined us online. 4:24:33 Katie, you can go ahead.
4:24:45 All right, can you hear me?
4:24:49 I'm sorry, I just got home, but, um, my name's Katie Farrell. 4:24:53 Um, I'm a resident of District District 4, and I just wanted to make a few comments about the Bull Run water infiltration project. 4:25:05 First of all, it's come to my attention that the budget is way over capacity, and I took a few moments and looked at a few other cities who have done infiltration projects recently, one of them being the city of Denver, and their project was completed in 2024 for $600 million. 4:25:32 Our cost is estimated now to be $2.56 billion. 4:25:38 This is just absolutely unaffordable for the city and the people of Portland. 4:25:44 I also looked at the Water rates, which are we pay about $160 a month. 4:25:52 The average cost in the United States for rates is about $45 to $79 a month. 4:26:00 These rates we're already paying are extraordinary. 4:26:04 So I'm just asking the council if you can please evaluate this in great detail and. 4:26:12 Not allow future funding to be passed. 4:26:16 Thanks.
4:26:17 Thank you very much.
4:26:19 Floy, you can go ahead.
4:26:20 Floy Jones. 4:26:22 I've spent about, oh, I don't know, 7,000 or 8,000 hours on this project over the last 20 years. 4:26:29 I was on the Water Bureau Budget Committee for several years. 4:26:32 We were a part of a water lawsuit. 4:26:34 We filed 26156.
4:26:37 I went to Washington, D.C. and testified on this rule. 4:26:40 We joined New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Tacoma in submitting substantive comments against this poorly crafted rule, which you have to know at least the basic that the Portland Water Bureau was the one and only utility that helped craft this poorly crafted rule. 4:26:58 In Portland, for Portland water ratepayers, wholesale customers have historically made up 40% of our rate base, right? 4:27:05 And now the 3 largest wholesale customers are leaving because of this filtration plant. 4:27:11 I understand that you received comments from Tualatin Valley, which is ironic since they are leaving.
4:27:17 And that means we're now at that point where the base is shrinking, shrinking, shrinking.
4:27:21 And if we continue down this road where we're dumping tons of cancer-causing chemicals into our water for no measurable public health benefit, and then we're creating this massive debt service which we're not going to be able to pay, and then we're going to end up bankrupt and privatization. 4:27:37 That's not what anybody wants for this system.
4:27:40 We have the best water in the country right now, the only federally protected watershed in the country.
4:27:45 The Portland Water Bureau voluntarily abandoned a 10-year variance because they said spending $1 million a year on testing is way too much.
4:27:55 $1 Million a year on testing.
4:27:57 We could have still been in that place. 4:27:59 We could have gone back and renegotiated this poorly crafted rule. 4:28:03 We could have worked with OHA and made some changes. 4:28:07 We've already spent $16 million on a UV design.
4:28:10 Thank you so much for being here today.
4:28:12 Yes, you're welcome. 4:28:13 Anybody's interested in actually learning more, you could come to my basement. 4:28:17 There are volumes and volumes of documents there, and I'd be happy to bring them in.
4:28:21 Patricia is online. 4:28:23 Patricia, you can go Go ahead.
4:28:30 Hello. 4:28:31 Hi, my name is Patricia Fiedler.
4:28:33 I find it unfortunate and amazing that the councilors are considering more money for the filtration plant.
4:28:39 Let me go back in history to the beginning.
4:28:41 I want to share with you a few words from Nick Fish, a past city commissioner, at a council meeting before he passed away.
4:28:48 He noted a yes vote on the filtration plant was difficult for him He was very troubled when the cost estimate rose from $350 to $850 million. 4:28:58 I want to be very clear, he said, we are not writing a blank check to the Water Bureau, noting he would jump on an amendment to cap construction costs if necessary, nor are commissioners approving the potentially $1 billion plant in its entirety. 4:29:14 What would Nick Fish say now with the costs At 2.6 billion plus, and a 30% reduction of ratepayers due to wholesale customers not renewing their contracts, and approximately one billion dollars in WIFIA loans with 614 million dollars interest for those loans. 4:29:35 And water bureaus are already some of the highest in the nation. 4:29:39 Does the council realize that an inexpensive option which is used by Boston, Seattle? 4:29:44 New York, and San Francisco. 4:29:45 UV— in 2009, Amanda Fritz, also a commissioner, stated after reading a report by the Portland Water Bureau that it was clear that UV has many additional water treatment actions better than filtration. 4:30:00 PWB worries about fires and turbidity causing a temporary UV shutdown. 4:30:04 Filtration plants can also be overwhelmed by storm conditions and temporary shutdowns. 4:30:10 Are you listening? 4:30:11 Stop the filtration plant. 4:30:12 Stop spending money the ratepayers cannot afford. 4:30:15 Don't throw good money after bad. 4:30:17 Thank you.
4:30:18 Thank you so much.
4:30:20 That concludes testimony.
4:30:22 Okay, colleagues, we are now moving into, uh, council discussion and technical and clarifying questions. 4:30:28 We have, uh, DCA Priya Dhanapal, uh, Director of Public Utilities Ting Lu, and Matt I'd asked them initially to do a presentation, but noting that it is 6:30, I'm going to leave it to us to just ask them technical questions and they can help us. 4:30:48 So colleagues, anybody who has any questions, get in the queue. 4:30:52 All right, Vice President Clark.
4:30:54 Thank you, Council President. 4:30:55 For some reason I lost the little hand thing. 4:30:59 Thank you all for being here today. 4:31:01 Thank you, Mayor. 4:31:01 Thank you, Councilor Wilson, for tonight. 4:31:02 I just had a— based on some of the testimony we just heard, I was under the impression that the water filtration plant would actually be able to deal with storms that create lots of turbidity and landslides and forest fires that create particulate. 4:31:28 Verify that for me again? 4:31:30 And secondly, you know, we hear a lot about UV, UV, and for some reason that whole idea was rejected years ago. 4:31:40 And maybe you could address— I know some of us are all new, but why was that option rejected?
4:31:51 Thank you so much for the question. 4:31:53 For the record, my name is Ting Lu, Portland Public Utilities Director. 4:31:57 Thank you, Mayor. 4:31:58 So there are multiple questions about the filtration and the UV. 4:32:02 First, I will address why filtration can be more resilient for the long term for earthquakes, wildfires, and everything. 4:32:10 Because whenever there is an earthquake, whenever there is like wildfires and extreme weather event, it really creates a high turbidity event. 4:32:21 And that's based on the current, current process, we won't be able to meet the permit compliance. 4:32:29 That's why we switched to the groundwater. 4:32:31 But that's not a sustainable solution. 4:32:34 By having the filtration as a series of the process, we'll be having the filtration, we'll having the coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and all the way to the disinfection. 4:32:46 It's really provide a multi-barrier treatment for the entire—.
4:32:51 Water quality process. 4:32:54 When we talk about why UV is not comparable to the filtration, I would say if we are looking at the Cryptosporidium, that's correct. 4:33:02 From US EPA, the only 2 treatment technology that can treat Cryptosporidium is either UV or filtration. 4:33:11 However, UV is highly dependent on the incoming water quality, which means that when the water is very turbid, like whenever you have a high rain event or wet weather event, the water becomes turbid. 4:33:25 UV is not going to be able to treat the crypto because it inactivates the pathogen here. 4:33:32 When you have a turbid water quality, it won't be able to treat the crypto at all. 4:33:38 So that's why we are not really comparing apples to apples. 4:33:41 We're comparing one technology to a whole resilient solution for the future.
4:33:47 Well, thank you, Director Liu. 4:33:48 I just want to make sure I understand the first part of what you were saying is that the new filtration plant that's under construction will be able to handle particulate and turbidity?
4:34:02 Thank you, Vice President Clark. 4:34:04 Councilor Green.
4:34:06 Thank you, Council President. 4:34:07 Um, as the chair of the Public Works Committee in her report indicated, there was one no vote, uh, and that was me. 4:34:16 So I feel, I feel duty-bound I'd like to respond to talk about that a little bit, about why I was the no vote, and then talk— ask you to sort of daylight a little bit of what we have— your response to my questions in that. 4:34:28 So first of all, colleagues, um, I think it was a surprise that I voted no on that. 4:34:34 I've been a champion for, um, investing in infrastructure and issuing debt to do so and all these things. 4:34:41 Um, but it didn't occur to me, uh, maybe it should have occurred to me earlier, but it didn't occur to me until, you know, I'm reading the financial impact statement of the ordinance for the bond issuance of precisely what that cumulative rate impact would be. 4:34:54 And, you know, it's Rule of 72. 4:34:57 You take 72 and you divide the interest rate of growth over time, and that's how long it takes. 4:35:01 That's how many years it takes to double. 4:35:03 And I calculated that to be about 7 or 8 years. 4:35:06 And so I— that alarmed me and it gave me pause. 4:35:10 In that committee meeting, Yes. 4:35:13 I sort of suggested there could be an alternative that we have not explored, which is a point-of-entry system of filtration. 4:35:20 It came out of nowhere. 4:35:21 It's really sort of off the hip. 4:35:23 It's something that I have some knowledge of, but I am not an engineer. 4:35:26 And so I asked the bureaus, I said, I understand that I surprised you with this vote and this sort of decision to introduce this new level of uncertainty. 4:35:37 Do you have the capacity to use your mettle and your skills to evaluate that? 4:35:43 And they did. 4:35:43 They turned that around inside of 2 weeks. 4:35:46 They produced a report that it's not friendly to my initial findings, but I think it's important to have that conversation and to maybe share with this council what you did find when I asked that question. 4:35:58 And I got to recognize that it's really hard to do an alternatives analysis This is not a replacement for a full-blown alternatives analysis. 4:36:06 This is just sort of a what you can do in 10 days type of analysis. 4:36:10 But would you mind sharing a little bit about what you did for my request and what you learned, please?
4:36:18 Thank you, Councilor Green. 4:36:19 This is Priya Dhanapal, DCA for Public Works. 4:36:22 And we appreciate the questions and perspective you brought to the discussion. 4:36:26 And we took those questions seriously because it is concerning. 4:36:29 And so we had— we contracted with Black and design consulting engineering firm that is internationally known, and we have them complete analysis of the point-of-use filtration that you requested us to look into. 4:36:45 In addition to that, we also looked at other potential alternatives like point-of-use UV as well, and we also had them look at decentralized systems too. 4:36:56 So I'm going to ask Director Lu to provide the cost ranges As a sort of analysis. 4:37:00 And we also have the consultant present in the audience if you have additional questions on assumptions or any further questions.
4:37:08 Yeah, thank you so much. 4:37:10 We are always looking for cost-effective ways to reduce the cost. 4:37:13 So follow up on this study, so there has been multiple analysis and alternatives for the point of entry. 4:37:21 How can we become more decentralized when looking to addressing this question? 4:37:26 So the 2 primary alternatives that the consultant has evaluated is including a membrane ultrafiltration microfiltration filter that's going to be installed at the meter side or at the right-of-way, because it's not impossible to do it at the household. 4:37:42 It's not a regulatory— like, the regulatory won't allow you to install in the household. 4:37:48 It's important also to see that this is a type of a membrane Cannot be just from Home Depot or Lowe's because the, the size of the crypto, we have to have specialized microfiltration and ultrafiltration too. 4:38:01 The other analysis the consultant does is also what about we're looking to the decentralized, every single household have a UV system as well. 4:38:09 So those are the 2 primary analysis they did. 4:38:13 So coming back from the capital cost, the capital costs are going to be from a range. 4:38:18 They We also did a sensitivity analysis. 4:38:21 It's from $3.7 billion to $5.6 billion for the point of entry for membrane filtration. 4:38:29 For the UV, it's a little bit lower, but it's still— the capital cost is $2.5 billion to $4 billion for the capital cost alone. 4:38:37 And then when you are looking to the operating costs and on the annual basis, there's a monitoring, maintenance, and the filter replacement And everything, the total annual cost will be $400 million to over $200 million for the membrane filtration for point of entry. 4:38:57 For the UV, that will be $50 million to $82 million each year for the point of entry maintenance. 4:39:05 Compared with the ball round filtration, it's $17 million for the annual maintenance, operation maintenance cost.
4:39:13 And also from an implementation perspective, the point of entry, because of all the installation and everything, is going to take over 10 to 13 years for both point of entry. 4:39:24 The consultant has also done additional alternatives for smaller, like a 4 or 5 filtration plant versus one centralized filtration plant. 4:39:35 Again, because of a cost escalation and everything, It's— these costs are going to be a bookend. 4:39:41 And even though we are looking to 4 or 5 filtration plants, it's going to still going to be higher than the current cost. 4:39:51 Thank you for that.
4:39:52 And I'm sure we could spend a lot more time on this than we have tonight, but I just, I wanted to be honest about what I learned from you, which I think is important for the public. 4:40:02 I think there's a rightful A well-placed lack of trust in the City of Portland with respect to not only this project, but the broader transparency frame that we've chosen in the city. 4:40:17 And so if I'm not disclosing that I asked a question, I got results that are not in accordance with— I thought they would, or, you know, that sort of challenged my initial assumptions, then I'm not doing my part to help that transparency either. 4:40:30 And so So thanks for engaging with us. 4:40:33 And I hope you make that report available to the public.
4:40:37 I think that'll be important. 4:40:38 I think the last thing I'll say is whatever happens with these bonds, whatever happens with this project, we absolutely have to figure out how to find a way to buy down the cost of this project because it is, I mean, I think the Water Bureau probably would take issue with my calculations of the rate increase, but a constant growth rate on an annual basis has a compounding effect. 4:41:08 And I think ratepayers know that. 4:41:11 And I think they're becoming aware of that. 4:41:13 And it is unsustainable. 4:41:15 And so to the earlier comment, our rate base also depends on our wholesale customers. 4:41:20 And if they start to leave, Then that sort of sets into motion a sort of kind of almost a doom loop of a cost pressure of rate increases. 4:41:30 And so my appeal is that we use this moment that we've opened up a little bit here to throw our full weight behind our legislative agenda to get some real meaningful grant monies to support not only this type of an infrastructure project, But frankly, the broad infrastructure costs that we face as a community, so it doesn't just fall on ratepayers and just taxpayers in the City of Portland because we're the engine of growth for the State of Oregon. 4:41:58 And so I'll just leave my comments there at that. 4:42:00 I'm still really struggling with this bond issuance, but I just wanted to make sure, colleagues, you understood that I had a conversation with these leaders of the Water Bureau and I needed to make that public. 4:42:12 Thanks.
4:42:12 Thank you, Councilor Green. 4:42:14 I put myself in the queue now Next, I gotta tell you, I am struggling with this item, with the entire— with the filtration plant in general. 4:42:24 I was in Commissioner Fish's office in 2017. 4:42:28 We were there when we were debating between a $250 million UV plant and a $500 million filtration plant, and it was hours and hours of hand-wringing about it, and now we are 5 4 times bigger than that. 4:42:42 4 Times bigger than that. 4:42:43 So I'm struggling with this. 4:42:45 I also— and maybe the information has changed and I don't know this, but my understanding was that in 2017, we never even had a— we've never had a single boil water notice due to crypto, that we've had positive O-site tests, but that we've never actually detected crypto as a vector in our water proper. 4:43:05 So I'm struggling pretty hard I'm glad we're talking about this. 4:43:07 I have— I want to ask, though, putting aside the question of whether we should— are we— this is the right thing to do, I want to understand a little bit more about the repayment of these bonds. 4:43:22 So the ordinance explicitly states that council must approve rate increases in perpetuity to cover this cost. 4:43:29 Debt service on $2.85 billion Grows to about $168 million per year by 2035 and then holds there through 2060. 4:43:41 So 25 years at $168 million, 34 years of debt payments total, all covered by ratepayers. 4:43:50 Could you tell me, I mean, all in, I'm not the math guy, but what are we in total going to be spending on this, almost $3 billion project over the 30 years or 25 years? 4:44:06 I don't have that information up right now. 4:44:09 I can pull it up though in a few minutes.
4:44:11 And if I may, Council President, for the record, Jonas Beery, the city's chief financial officer. 4:44:16 Just, there's, I think, 2 things that are sort of happening here with that in the question that you just asked. 4:44:22 One is the total cost of debt service for the project. 4:44:25 And so debt manager Matt Gerach will work on gathering that. 4:44:28 And providing it. 4:44:29 The other question related to the council's obligation to raise rates is broader than just this project, right? 4:44:37 That's a covenant that we make with bondholders that we will produce revenues to pay the debt. 4:44:43 And if rate increases are required in order to meet that legal obligation, then that is the future council's obligation. 4:44:52 The amount of that increase, the number of that increase is dependent on many factors. 4:44:56 Right. 4:44:56 Factors, of which the debt service on this bond issue is one. 4:44:59 We pay off debt that we currently have outstanding, so that reduces that number. 4:45:05 There's operational decisions that are made at the bureaus that impact the rate matrix. 4:45:09 So I just wanna be clear that there is an explicit obligation in the bond covenants to increase rates at the amount necessary, but that is not necessarily specifically only tied to the debt service that's incurred by these bonds. 4:45:21 Thank you.
4:45:23 Does that make sense? 4:45:23 I think so, kind of.
4:45:26 Based on the numbers that I have in front of me, the total debt service on the debt, not excluding the debt that already exists, but the city previously issued, it's $4.98 billion total principal and interest.
4:45:44 And I'm not sure why, I think your microphone is turned off for some reason. 4:45:46 I'm not clear what's going on there. 4:45:48 But I just want to— is that— oh, there we go. 4:45:51 Yeah. 4:45:51 Okay. 4:45:51 Um, $4.98 billion in total. 4:45:55 Um, and that, that debt also includes other capital work, not just, um, for the project. 4:46:01 Sure. 4:46:02 And, and Jonas, thank you for sort of touching on my second question, was about the fact that we are going to have to rate increase rates, and it's not clear what those will look like. 4:46:10 You know, and I, I'll, I'll say that between the filtration plant The smart meter installation that's going to be happening. 4:46:18 Some of the other just sort of general ways these things are creeping as we are combining BES and water into one bureau, talking about the— there was a maintenance overage over at the lagoon that we have that required additional— like, I'm just very, very worried that we aren't keeping as tight a lid on rate increases. 4:46:39 In fact, In fact, when I was in Commissioner Fish's office, his one overarching requirement for the 2 combined utility bureaus was we're going to do 5% increase over the years. 4:46:51 And I sat in meetings with Jonas in there for a long time trying to figure out how we're going to get the combined rate down below 5%. 4:46:57 And I'm not clear that we have that level of cheerleader right now. 4:47:01 And so I'm asking you to be those cheerleaders, to really take the fact that if we are seriously looking at doubling our water bills in the next decade because of how these increases happen, that is just unsustainable, and we really need to be very, very intentional about it.
4:47:18 So, Councilor Novick.
4:47:23 Thank you, Mr. President. 4:47:25 I'd just like you to respond to the argument that we have a— in case of an emergency, we have a backup source of water, we have the groundwater, And just why isn't that sufficient?
4:47:36 We have a wildfire, we have an earthquake, can't we just rely on the groundwater?
4:47:41 Yeah, I can answer that question. 4:47:44 So the groundwater is really for short-term, like a temporary backup for our systems. 4:47:50 And also it's—.
4:47:51 How temporary? 4:47:51 Like a day, 10 days, a month?
4:47:54 It's more than a day, but I don't have that kind of the timeframe there. 4:47:59 But the key part is it won't meet the summer demand when there's more demand for the water. 4:48:06 And keeping in mind there's a lot of other water, city system is also drawing from that groundwater reservoir as well. 4:48:14 So it's really, it's for a short-term solution versus a filtration. 4:48:19 And also the other things, whenever we turn on the groundwater, there is a cost for electricity and everything else, pumping and everything else going on as well.
4:48:28 So leaving that aside, can you just sort of paint a picture for people of We have this huge event, we have a wildfire, we have an earthquake and landslides, we don't have the filtration plant. 4:48:42 What is people's experience of water going to be? 4:48:45 Will they not get any water at all coming out of the tap? 4:48:47 Will they get water coming out that's poisonous? 4:48:49 What would happen?
4:48:52 I think we're really talking about emergency supply and disaster planning. 4:48:57 That's really going to be a very tough situation, we have— we will need to be really prioritizing and looking to— not everyone will have the water. 4:49:10 So we'll need to really look into how we can supply that at the city level.
4:49:16 But would that be true with or without the filtration plant? 4:49:19 I'm just trying to get a sense of what people's experience, personal experience will be after a disastrous event. 4:49:26 With a filtration plant or without a filtration plant?
4:49:31 With the filtration plant, because we do have the pipelines that are seismic resilient. 4:49:36 So we'll be able to deliver the water into a central place and then be able to deliver the water to more city communities versus right now those pipelines are not seismic resilient and many of them are very old actually. 4:49:49 So we haven't been— we have been deferring that to the replacement because of the filtration pipeline replacement.
4:49:55 Wait a minute. 4:49:57 How does— I don't actually understand the relationship between that. 4:50:00 Why? 4:50:01 I would've thought that the filtration plant is one thing and the pipes are another.
4:50:06 The filtration included both the filtration facility as well as the 7 miles of the pipeline that's connecting from the raw water to the filtration facility, as well as coming out from the filtration facility to our conduit and coming to the Does that mean the filtration plant isn't just a filtration plant?
4:50:28 Okay. 4:50:32 What would it cost to just replace the pipes with things that are seismic resilient and not build a filtration plant?
4:50:41 Let me check on that info. 4:50:44 I'll see our chief engineer. 4:50:46 Miro, do you have that number here? 4:50:50 The pipeline versus the facility itself?
4:50:52 Oh, the dollars for the program?
4:50:56 Yeah, I just like assuming that all you were going to do is replace the pipes so that they're seismic resilient and you weren't worrying about building a filtration plant, how much would that cost?
4:51:08 It would be a different routing. 4:51:10 It wouldn't be the same pipes. 4:51:11 So we would have to have different routing and replacing existing pipes. 4:51:15 Those pipes are added to connect to the filtration plant Okay. 4:51:20 So I could— we could probably run numbers for replacing the existing pipes to the existing plant.
4:51:28 That would probably mean— would that be like hundreds of millions or billions? 4:51:32 What would it be, do we think?
4:51:34 It would be significant. 4:51:36 The current pipelines project—.
4:51:43 So we did split it in 2. 4:51:44 So the current pipelines for 7 miles is about $445 million, $400, close to $500 million, just the pipelines and 7 miles of it.
4:52:04 Okay, but that's still just a fraction of $2.5 billion. 4:52:09 So again, my question My question is, leaving that aside, assuming that we have seismically strengthened pipes, what will the water drinking experience be of people after the disaster without the filtration plant or with the filtration plant? 4:52:29 Will people be getting water at all? 4:52:30 Will they be drinking poison? 4:52:31 What will happen if we don't have the filtration plant?
4:52:34 Yeah, the facility itself having the seismic resilient piece of it. 4:52:39 So we'll definitely have the water and then getting to the certain areas for communities for distributing and everything. 4:52:47 But without the facility, there is a lot of the landslide and everything. 4:52:52 The water is not meeting permit compliance for drinking water quality.
4:52:57 Okay, but leaving aside legal compliance, you're actually a person drinking it. 4:53:01 Will you get sick?
4:53:03 Okay. 4:53:05 Um, how would you get sick? 4:53:08 What would be the ways you might get sick?
4:53:10 All the particles and all the landslide and all the kind of particles got into the drinking water pipes.
4:53:17 But like, what sort of illness would you get if you're drinking contaminated water?
4:53:21 I mean, that's all the microorganisms, there's the chemicals. 4:53:25 I mean, that's very serious. 4:53:27 So it's really about public health.
4:53:34 Thank you, Councilor Novick. 4:53:37 Councilor Green.
4:53:39 Yeah, I just neglected to mention during the, uh, my initial round at this is that this is precisely why we need to have a formal rate hearing process, um, on a sort of periodic basis that's written into our code. 4:53:55 We currently have a very informal process, and we have to adopt rates during an annual budget review process. 4:54:01 But if we can adopt a policy in the City of Portland to say we're going to set rates in the Water Bureau, the BES Bureau, once every 2 years or once every 5 years, whatever we think makes the most sense, then we can put our long-run planning data into the mix. 4:54:16 We can use our best estimates into the mix, and we can evaluate. 4:54:21 What our rates are going to cost in advance of the projects that it funds. 4:54:25 Because part of the issue that we're facing here and the pushback that we're getting is we're approving the financing before we've approved the rates to validate that. 4:54:34 And we're going to have to approve the rates to validate that to stay in compliance with our covenants. 4:54:39 But the risk that I have flagged in the committee was I'm worried about the political appetite for our future council to raise those rates. 4:54:46 And so that's a very serious concern. 4:54:47 So some of us are gonna be pushing very hard irrespective of this specific matter to put into practice that rate-setting process so that we can mature as an infrastructure and rate-making institution as a city. 4:55:02 So I just wanted to raise that up. 4:55:04 Thanks.
4:55:04 Thank you, Councilor Green. 4:55:05 Councilor Ryan.
4:55:07 Thank you, Council President. 4:55:10 You know, I did a site visit with former leaders in water I think it was in 2023, and so I spent the entire day up at Bull Run. 4:55:18 And one reason they wanted me to do that, because I asked a lot of concerning questions at that time as it started to escalate. 4:55:27 I really appreciate this conversation. 4:55:28 It's really needed. 4:55:32 I became sold by the end of the day, and I now just have some more questions to I wanted to ask first about the legal delay. 4:55:42 How long was that, the recent legal delay?
4:55:45 The recent legal delay was about 7 months. 4:55:47 We also had a 9-month permitting delay at the beginning of the project. 4:55:50 Total 16-month delay.
4:55:52 Was that last year?
4:55:53 Yes, the 7-month delay was last year.
4:55:55 How much did that cost us per day?
4:55:58 I believe it's about $30 million per day. 4:56:01 We're finalizing that negotiation for that cost, and we're not going to reveal the number right here, but I can tell you we've estimated the cost of delays moving forward to be $12 to $17 million a month, which reflected some of the comments that we heard related to delaying the project once you have equipment and people and workers already committed to that work. 4:56:25 It has a cost of suspension.
4:56:30 I must have missed, what was the estimate of cost per day?
4:56:34 $12 To $17 million per day moving forward for further delays. 4:56:41 Sorry, per month. 4:56:42 I'm sorry.
4:56:43 Okay. 4:56:44 It's getting late.
4:56:47 So I was doubting myself. 4:56:49 Thanks for catching that.
4:56:50 I appreciated your questions, Councilor Novick. 4:56:53 I wanted to hang out there for a while as well. 4:56:56 I would like you to comment on— Director Liu, were you here and I just didn't know you when we had the big wildfire? 4:57:02 Was that in 2023? 4:57:04 I'll run.
4:57:06 I joined while Water Bureau was responding to that wildfire, so I remember part of that.
4:57:11 DCA Dipole, you weren't here then, right? 4:57:13 No, I was not here. 4:57:14 I'm unfamiliar. 4:57:15 The reason I bring that up is because it was a big concern and we did temporarily have to go to groundwater, correct?
4:57:22 I'm hoping there's some institutional memory around here besides me.
4:57:30 Yes, in 20. 4:57:32 So you're hearing back from the Water Bureau that we did augment with groundwater supply during that time.
4:57:38 Well, thank you. 4:57:39 That was really kind of you. 4:57:43 Because I probably need a hearing aid, I lost something. 4:57:46 What would you say?
4:57:48 We did have confirmation that the Water Bureau augmented with the groundwater supply during that time when there was a wildfire.
4:57:58 So I think we have this real-time example not too long ago. 4:58:01 It really wasn't, it was within the last 2 years. 4:58:04 And what did we learn from that? 4:58:07 Like, I was trying to, when I was listening to Councilor Novick's question, I was trying to really be persuaded by that experience just a couple years ago. 4:58:17 And then hidden in his questioning that this is so necessary because we learned during that time the constraints of groundwater. 4:58:24 I don't want to put words in your mouth, so tell me more forcefully, what did we learn from that experience, and did it help make the case for what we're trying to do here, choosing this more expensive option?
4:58:37 The, the Camp Creek wildfire was not— it was a wildfire, but it was not a significant one. 4:58:43 But even that—.
4:58:44 It sure felt significant. 4:58:46 I'm sorry.
4:58:46 No, I want to But the point I'm trying to make is even, even at that, with that level of, um, uh, extent of, um, the fire that we had, we had to switch to the groundwater wells. 4:58:57 And I, what I'm learning from the Water Bureau is it takes about, um, we, we can supplement for 180 days, um, if you're for a sustained period of only 180 days or so. 4:59:07 And so if it is longer than that, if there's extensive wildfire or if it's, um, much more, uh, um, damage than that, then It's gonna be difficult. 4:59:16 So that's why the filtration is gonna be really important to make sure we are able to filter the, you know, if there's turbidity or other particulates, it's important to have the filtration to be able to do that.
4:59:31 So when you're up here, thank you, that was helpful. 4:59:34 When you're up here, you just have this, when's another shoe gonna drop feeling? 4:59:40 And how, this reminds me a little bit back when we were trying to, build the tram. 4:59:45 Remember that? 4:59:46 Everyone was getting really impatient with how expensive that was getting. 4:59:50 Yeah. 4:59:51 What can you say that gives us confidence about what's different today than maybe what we've experienced in the last 2 years? 4:59:58 Last 2 years hasn't gone very well for this project.
5:00:03 So, you know, we have new leadership here. 5:00:06 We have Director Lew, we have Chief Engineer Muriel. 5:00:09 And we have strengthened the accountability measures in place. 5:00:14 We've had a PDAD team, and I'm going to request Dr. Lu to talk about the accountability measures in place and also the oversight mechanisms that we have in place. 5:00:23 We're identifying the risks and also actively managing the risks to make sure we deliver the project on within the extended timeline that is given to us by OHA as well as We have cost control mechanisms in place as well. 5:00:38 So we have all hands on deck on the Water Bureau right now trying to manage costs and the schedule. 5:00:44 And we are happy to talk about the measures that we have in place as well, if Director Lu or Chief Engineer Muriel wants to talk about that. 5:00:51 Yeah, I'll just— back to the 2 years I was not with the Water Bureau, but I still hear people on staff from Water Bureau talk a lot. 5:01:00 It's only a few miles from actually our water source. 5:01:03 So people were very scared during that time. 5:01:05 What if it's really touching our water supply and we don't have a really resilient supply to supply for the Portlanders? 5:01:13 And people think if we have the filtration, that will be much a different story. 5:01:18 So it is still impacting everyone, and the way I'll talk about it and think about it for the 2 years was really a scary time. 5:01:25 So the lesson learned from a project management perspective, I'll just say The biggest part is how we are handling a mega project. 5:01:33 This is over billions of a project, and this is the first time that for the bureau and even for the city, we are like a largest infrastructure project we have. 5:01:43 So it's really strengthening that accountability, transparency, and also making sure there's multiple layers of oversight and accountability. 5:01:52 So we're focusing, focusing on a lot of oversight panel and the owner's trust. 5:01:56 Thank you. 5:01:57 For moving forward. 5:01:58 The other thing that I look at is how can we transform from the monthly update to foresight and insights? 5:02:06 How can we translating that to the actionable items and milestones and making sure we are mitigating those risks proactively, making sure we stay on schedule? 5:02:15 And every time, every day costs money. 5:02:18 So that's really what we are being more proactive moving forward. 5:02:22 Councilmember Herbold. 5:02:23 So maybe I can jump in a little bit. 5:02:25 So I am, for the record, I'm Muriel Geisel-Teufel. 5:02:27 I'm the new interim chief for the Water Bureau. 5:02:30 I came from the BES side. 5:02:32 My expertise is in program management. 5:02:35 I'm an engineer, but managing capital delivery, big ones. 5:02:39 So I've joined a couple of weeks ago, and over those weeks I've made some changes in direction to the team for the management to really Strengthen the program controls aspect. 5:02:51 So a little less engineering, but more program controls, which relates to forecasting, reporting, schedule control, schedule analysis, so that we can match the pace and the intensity of construction, and that we can manage those risks and work through our contracts and keep accountabilities where they lie, including our own. 5:03:12 So we're making a lot of changes in Risk reporting, risk forecasting, and mitigation. 5:03:18 And right now with land use being, as of changes, things that have changed in the last 2 years is really the land use risk has gone away. 5:03:29 And that was a massive risk of delay that has actually incurred and that we are paying for now. 5:03:35 So moving forward at the 30% phase of construction, it's really about managing the construction work.
5:03:42 Minimizing changes and having our eyes wide open for those changes and understanding who owns them. 5:03:50 So that's what we bring.
5:03:50 That gives us some confidence. 5:03:52 The staff retention challenges have been a concern when you're up here. 5:03:56 So it helped to have all of you just pipe in right now. 5:03:59 I appreciate it. 5:04:00 I'll just end with a couple quick questions. 5:04:03 I think what's hard for some of us is, are we too far down the road to put the genie back in the bottle, to go for Plan B? 5:04:14 And would that be more expensive than pursuing this through? 5:04:20 And I think that's the big question that I'm asking now at 7 o'clock. 5:04:26 And I hope that I could get some clear answers on that before I have to vote. 5:04:30 Is it next week we vote? 5:04:31 Yeah.
5:04:32 2 Weeks. 5:04:32 And was this discussed in the committee? 5:04:35 This is where I'm not on the committee, so again, I'm asking questions. 5:04:38 I'm sorry if this is boring for those of you in the committee.
5:04:42 The clear answer, Councilor Ryan, is yes. 5:04:47 Anything other than the pathway that you're taking—.
5:04:49 You're saying yes.
5:04:49 It's going to be more expensive.
5:04:50 You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
5:04:52 Yes. 5:04:53 We have looked at other alternatives. 5:04:57 We looked at point-of-use filtration, point-of-use UV, We've looked at decentralized treatment systems, and we are also obligated under the federal regulations to meet the regulations by requirement by 2 years. 5:05:13 So we, in addition, after Councilor Green checked in with us about alternative options, we've had conversations with OHA as well, and we've had clear direction from them that we are— the city is required to meet the regulations.
5:05:26 And complete the project in 2 years. 5:05:29 So at this point, if you have to go back and do something else, we've already sunk in $750 million in this project. 5:05:38 So if you're choosing some other alternate treatment, it's going to cost more to decommission this plant and then go back and find another alternate to, you know, for treatment or other Other, you know, it's gonna take a long time and money. 5:05:58 It's gonna cost more in the long run.
5:06:01 The dissent is so different today than it was 2 years ago. 5:06:05 It was neighbors out in East County mostly. 5:06:09 I saw the big signs when I went to the site visit, you know, go away filtration system. 5:06:16 They were big signs too. 5:06:17 You couldn't miss 'em. 5:06:19 And that's when you knew you were on the way to the Bull Run. 5:06:21 You could just follow those signs. 5:06:24 I've been hanging in there mostly 'cause of labor. 5:06:28 It's a really amazing project. 5:06:31 You can have a youth from East County hopefully be a pre-apprentice and get all the way to journey person throughout the duration of the project. 5:06:39 We don't have a lot of projects like that, but I don't want them to retire while they're working on this project. 5:06:44 And that's the big concern. 5:06:46 It's just like, when is this? 5:06:48 Like, what's the timeline? 5:06:50 And I think that needs to be answered. 5:06:52 I will also say that this is our most precious resource in the city of Portland, is Bull Run. 5:06:57 It's one of our biggest assets, like understatement of the year, about why we are a futuristic city when it comes to the climate crisis. 5:07:07 So we want to get this right. 5:07:09 And so we're going to keep asking necessary questions for the public. 5:07:13 And I do think that we need more updates. 5:07:16 I'm really grateful, Chair Clark, that you're focused on this issue. 5:07:21 And I know that the legal challenge and the delay was really unfortunate last year. 5:07:25 I remember when I heard that news, it was— it hit hard. 5:07:29 So, but I didn't hear much because of this new form of government, and I'm not in the committee. 5:07:34 I didn't really get an update. 5:07:36 So thank you for catching me up a bit. 5:07:37 Thank you.
5:07:41 Thank you, Councilor Ryan. 5:07:42 Councilor Zimmerman.
5:07:45 Thank you. 5:07:46 The genie in the bottle question is kind of where I want to go to. 5:07:50 $750 Million that's already been spent. 5:07:52 So I'm trying to get a sense of— because I have no way of understanding $750 million, but is this that we bought the lot, we built the walls, the foundation, And we haven't put the roof on yet, or we put the roof on but there's nothing on the inside yet. 5:08:07 And, you know, it just— in terms of the way we think about it, it gets to the what happens if we don't issue bonds? 5:08:16 What would be the course of action if that was the case? 5:08:20 What happens if we don't? 5:08:23 And I don't know even who the right person to pose that to, so between the 5 of you, roll the dice.
5:08:28 Okay. 5:08:28 Could I defer it to CFO Peery or—.
5:08:31 Of course they will.
5:08:34 Thank you, DCA Donahue. 5:08:35 So I can't answer from a project perspective. 5:08:38 I mean, certainly there would be project risks and folks at the Bureau might be able to talk about those project risks. 5:08:43 There is a pretty significant risk to massively— to not issuing these bonds and to massively pivoting or pausing the funding plan. 5:08:56 The city has received the benefit of WIFIA loans, the Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act, federal dollars to fund major water and public health projects. 5:09:09 The terms of that agreement, which are very beneficial to the city, require that we have a funding plan. 5:09:15 Those dollars are only available to fund up to 49, I think it's 49% of the project. 5:09:21 We have to fund the other 51%.
5:09:24 We have received some of those loans and are bound to those agreements. 5:09:28 So I can say from a financing perspective, one extremely challenging outcome is we would be at risk of potentially defaulting those agreements. 5:09:38 And the consequences of that would be very, very unpleasant. 5:09:43 I mean, unknown at this moment. 5:09:45 And I'm certainly hopeful that that's not something that we have to address with attorneys.
5:09:49 I can speak a little bit if you'd like to the status. 5:09:53 So the site was ours and we're building on it, but we're about 30% complete on the filtration site. 5:10:01 So that means the excavations have been completed, the concrete pours have largely been completed, and the site is going— starting to go vertical. 5:10:09 So we're building walls and starting to build up. 5:10:12 So lots of cranes and equipment is mobilized on the site.
5:10:16 No buildings are complete yet, or no tanks are complete yet, but a lot of pipes, underground work is pretty advanced as we're going further up. 5:10:28 And on the $750 million was as of March. 5:10:31 As of April, we're $785 million spent. 5:10:35 And if we were to cancel tomorrow or terminate tomorrow, We have about, we estimate a 10 to 30% termination fee on the remaining contract values. 5:10:48 We have about 1.9 contracts committed. 5:10:52 And then we also would have to incur costs to deconstruct what we've put in, the concrete, the rebar, dispose of it, refill the big excavations, and essentially restore the site.
5:11:07 And that's— we estimate this $100 to $300 million in addition to the termination fees that are $100 to $350 million. 5:11:16 And to add to what, um, Muriel was saying, you know, in addition to facing contractor claims, like, we are— even if the bonds don't pass, we'll still be legally required by OHA to complete the filtration plant. 5:11:28 Um, so not issuing the bonds does not, you know, eliminate that obligation. 5:11:34 It will create financing schedule issues, cause problems for a project that is already significantly underway.
5:11:39 Thank you. 5:11:40 Council President, I'm going to pause. 5:11:41 I have to step out for a sec, but I would like to keep myself in the queue. 5:11:44 Just please go to the next person.
5:11:45 Okay. 5:11:46 Vice President Clark.
5:11:48 Well, I was kind of hoping that we could wind down a little bit here and take a break, but I, just as the chair of the Public Works Committee now, And a couple of my members are here. 5:12:02 I just want to express that we have a new team in town. 5:12:07 We have new leadership. 5:12:09 I have a lot of confidence in the new leadership that's sort of making up for lost time, maybe making up for past mistakes. 5:12:17 And I have just grown— I don't know if the other committee members feel that— I have a lot of confidence in the new team and your Your oversight, what you've been putting in place, the money that you've already saved in the process. 5:12:32 And I look to the future, to other discussions aside from the plant, to the rate restructuring that Councilor Green alluded to, that we have a lot of work to do, but we're not going to go backwards. 5:12:45 We have to go forwards. 5:12:47 And I think you're doing a great job in getting control of this project and getting, um, what's it called, the, uh, project, uh, not the oversight person, but what is it called?
5:13:00 The owner's rep. 5:13:01 Thank you. 5:13:02 That we finally have an owner's rep, that we're, we're really— we're kind of growing up now. 5:13:06 Um, and to your comment, uh, Councilor Ryan, I was here when the tram was built, and I remember all the hoo-ha about the increased price. 5:13:17 And now you look back and it was a good investment. 5:13:20 It was a really good investment. 5:13:21 And we thought it was very, very expensive and the price went up, but we did the right thing in building that and in building the light rail lines that people thought were very expensive, but they, they've served us well. 5:13:33 And we are getting WIFIA loans in, in addition to other kinds of financing assistance. 5:13:39 So I just wanted to put a little more positive note on this that we are. 5:13:44 We do have really good leadership now, and we're making up for lost time.
5:13:50 Thank you, Vice President Clark. 5:13:51 Councilor Smith.
5:13:54 Thank you, Council President. 5:13:56 Thank you all for your presentation. 5:13:57 I, I appreciate it. 5:13:59 And we had a nice conversation in our Public Works Committee and offline. 5:14:05 I was, um, I was a little surprised at the amount of bonding that we were going to do in I understand, you know, what has taken place, and I, and I appreciate the, the breakdown that you gave me. 5:14:18 It would be helpful because we will be privy to information in the Public Works Committee if we can also do additional work sessions or something in the Committee of the Whole, because people need to be updated on this. 5:14:35 It's, it's like I don't sit on certain committees and then I hear something, it's like I didn't know about that.
5:14:40 But I think it's going to be helpful, and I think that might be the better place. 5:14:43 I know the Committee of the Whole is booked up with a lot of things, but even if we can't do Committee of the Whole, for us to do a work session, um, if it's too much to, to get us on the regular BIC schedule, because this is a big deal and people are wanting to see what we're going to do. 5:15:03 And I remember last year I was bombarded with this, with this issue when we were going through LUBA. 5:15:10 And, um, the minority contractors were, were calling me and they weren't getting paid. 5:15:15 All of their equipment was on site. 5:15:17 They couldn't do anything else. 5:15:18 So it, it really put a, um, a strain on their budgets. 5:15:24 And so, uh, I want to make sure that we're, we're doing everything that we need to do. 5:15:29 We don't need any more distractions. 5:15:31 I know you can't help if there's an emergency that's uncontrollable. 5:15:38 That is an active God of sorts. 5:15:46 But I think that we'll be on the right track with using these funds. 5:15:52 And I think if you keep us really—.
5:15:59 When there are problems, little or small, let us know what it is because I think it can just get out of control. 5:16:06 But thank you.
5:16:08 Thank you, Councilor Smith. 5:16:09 I'm going to use the opportunity to very briefly say we will be including an update on a filtration— on the filtration project and every month in the CAIS report. 5:16:18 We also have a pub— transparency is very important to us. 5:16:21 We want to— we want the public to know the status of the project. 5:16:25 And so we have a website where we are updating the project status every month on the 20th of every month as well. 5:16:32 And we are happy to come to the full council or committee of the whole to provide updates as well.
5:16:37 And when the weather gets warmer, I want to see how we can all go out on a bus and go on a field trip.
5:16:45 We've scheduled it.
5:16:47 Are we going together or do we have to go separately?
5:16:50 We're going— well, I think we're going—.
5:16:51 The Public Works Committee is going together in August.
5:16:53 Public Works. 5:16:54 But I mean, We would be happy to take it to committee. 5:16:59 Thank you.
5:17:00 Thank you, Councilor Smith. 5:17:01 Councilor Avalos.
5:17:05 Thank you. 5:17:05 I know it's late and there are— this is a big item. 5:17:09 I think I just wanted to get in the queue to just put my, uh, put my voice in to say that I am just unsure. 5:17:19 I'm unsure about this. 5:17:20 I'm, I'm hearing the testimony. 5:17:23 We're talking broadly about affordability issues. 5:17:25 I'm concerned about the potential for people's water to double, triple. 5:17:34 You know, my HOA, the water bill is like bankrupting us. 5:17:38 Like, so it is a real problem. 5:17:41 And obviously I understand the need for infrastructure, the need for clean water. 5:17:45 We want to preserve our, you know, world-class clean water. 5:17:49 Um, and these trade-offs are just really hard, especially as we're making all of these other decisions, right, with the TUF and the arts tax and all of that. 5:17:57 We can't, um, look at this in a vacuum. 5:18:01 And so, um, you probably already said, but give— because this is a non-emergency ordinance, first reading, is that right, Council President?
5:18:10 Okay. 5:18:10 Um, and then we've got the discussion next week about the rates, like Like, how does this conversation, I guess, overlap with that discussion? 5:18:20 I'm not sure how this fits into the current budget cycle, AKA I'm trying to, uh, understand what is the timeline. 5:18:29 Because as you're hearing, people are like, we should do work sessions, we should do more, you know, community engagement. 5:18:33 So can you just give me an understanding of the relationship of this ordinance to the rate conversation we have next week?
5:18:41 Yeah, yeah, yeah. 5:18:42 Thank you, Councilor. 5:18:43 Um, So they are related just as sort of, this is all a thread of related actions over multiple years and budgets, actions play a role. 5:18:54 The ordinance today or for adoption, I guess next week, is specific to authorize the bonds. 5:19:01 Ultimately, those bonds have to be paid for with revenues. 5:19:06 So the bond, what the action does is allows the debt manager and team to start working on Setting that up. 5:19:12 It's a multi-month process to get to the point where we issue the bonds, get the money, contribute to the project. 5:19:20 On a parallel path, we have action to take around increasing rates or adjusting rates. 5:19:27 So that action will happen at whatever level Council chooses. 5:19:31 The rates that are proposed or will be proposed in the rate ordinance are built based upon an assumption of the costs related to this bond issue. 5:19:39 If council chooses something otherwise, the authorization for these bonds still stand. 5:19:44 The capacity won't be there to issue the full amount because we only issue the bonds that we actually have money to pay for. 5:19:50 So let's imagine if the rate increase request is 8% and council says, oh, we only want 2%. 5:19:56 Okay, then we don't issue $500 million of bonds because we don't have revenues to pay for it. 5:20:01 That then institutes all of the sort of cost increases Yeah. 5:20:04 Risks that we've just talked about in other contexts. 5:20:07 The other thing I'll note is from at least the sort of side of the folks sitting over here at the table, we don't intend and didn't intend this year for these 2 conversations to be so closely aligned in time. 5:20:20 But it was really challenging to find space on committees and agendas to not have them overlap. 5:20:26 So I just wanna acknowledge that that's not our objective. 5:20:30 Our objective is to actually have separation in these conversations. 5:20:33 So that it doesn't feel like it's all compressed at one time. 5:20:35 We just were sort of stuck in this moment in this particular month.
5:20:41 That's helpful to understand. 5:20:42 So am I interpreting this to say these calls that councilors have for more time and process, do we have time to do that?
5:20:54 Well, I don't— I mean, ultimately council has the authority to do what you choose. 5:21:00 I think the risk is You know, we're bringing this item now because we do need to start the process to issue the bonds, to receive the money, and be able to fund the project without delay and cost increase. 5:21:11 So there is some time sensitivity around getting the authorization for the bonds. 5:21:18 Again, parallel track, there's obviously a time requirement to increase the rates relative to the budget actions that are coming over the next few weeks.
5:21:27 And then, um, this kind of question around— so what we're all talking about is that this is falling on the ratepayers, on the ratepayers. 5:21:36 Where does the general fund come into this? 5:21:38 Like, I guess I want to understand at what, what is our flexibility? 5:21:42 Like, if in the future we, you know, let's say we prove this as is, okay, in the future are we able to come back and say, okay, we're not going to— instead of, you know, this year we're slated to increase by X percentage to ratepayers, but instead we found General fund money to, to bypass that? 5:21:59 Like, help me understand our— what our options are in the future, um, so that I would understand what— by taking this action, whether it's in this form or not, are we going to be able to talk in the future about other revenue, whether we increase revenue in some other place? 5:22:14 And I know that water is mostly ratepayer, maybe even 100% now with the current budget. 5:22:19 So, um, I, I also want to understand the philosophy of that because I know that in this budget you guys moved a lot of general fund. 5:22:25 Not— it wasn't that much, but you moved it out officially. 5:22:29 So what would it look like to move general fund back in in the future for this kind of reason?
5:22:33 Yeah, Councilor, that would always be something at council's discretion.
5:22:37 Okay. 5:22:39 And so lastly, for next week, so this is on the agenda, Council President, to come back next week— oh, in 2 weeks. 5:22:47 Okay. 5:22:48 Uh, and then that is It is next week.
5:22:52 Evan told me I'm wrong.
5:22:54 Oh, really? 5:22:56 Okay, we have a meeting next week.
5:22:58 I know, I, I believe— I mean, I can't see Evan, so he can throw something at me if I say wrong. 5:23:04 I believe this is in the queue of a variety of items that'll be, um, in the suite of things for Wednesday next week, um, for adoption next week. 5:23:12 Um, I can— I, I may be wrong. 5:23:15 I guess the following week. 5:23:16 Okay. 5:23:17 I think we're just doing the budget next week. 5:23:18 Okay. 5:23:19 That may be true. 5:23:20 I can't recall. 5:23:21 I'll get back to everybody as soon as I know.
5:23:26 Sorry, I got jumbled there with what my question was. 5:23:29 I think I was just asking then— no, I'll just leave it at that. 5:23:35 Thanks.
5:23:36 Thank you, Councilor Avalos. 5:23:39 I'm going to limit debate to those in the queue. 5:23:41 Councilor Kanal, then Councilor Zimmerman.
5:23:46 I have one question, um, and it's just to respond to what we've been seeing in the written and even in the, the verbal testimony around an independent audit. 5:23:57 I want to stress that I know pretty much everybody up here inherited a lot of this and not try to put anything on you. 5:24:05 I think, um, a lot of the work that you've been doing to create more public transparency and to to just get a handle on things is helpful. 5:24:13 I also know that sometimes, and we know this on this side of the, the dais too, you inherit something that you didn't create, doesn't have a lot of public trust in it, and now you inherit the lack of public trust and have a responsibility to dig out of it too, even though it was not your fault. 5:24:28 So, um, one of the things that could help with that that's been suggested, I'm not sure until I ask this question, is an independent audit. 5:24:39 Can you speak to that in terms of what it would cost, what the timeline would be, why it— what the conversation's been?
5:24:45 Thank you, Councilor. 5:24:47 We are in the works of trying to create an independent financial oversight panel. 5:24:52 And we are— Director Liu is bringing together the scope of work for that, what the panel structure would be, and what are the expertise that we are looking for in the panel. 5:25:04 And we will be sending it to you all for feedback. 5:25:07 And Director Lew, if you want to talk to that briefly.
5:25:10 Is the use of the— is the choice of not using the word audit just because of the auditor, or is it some different scope of work?
5:25:19 Do you mind if I step in here just for a moment? 5:25:21 Because this is something that we discussed in the Public Works Committee. 5:25:24 I don't know if you were then there yet, but we discussed this concept of having an An external independent audit, but we decided it in the short run now to go with this oversight committee to let them do their work and then decide, do we really— do we go to the next step? 5:25:42 So that, that's, I think, the way we approached it in Public Works. 5:25:46 They've put, they've put together this oversight committee, which I'm sure they can explain who's on it, what their function will be, but we did talk about an external independent audit.
5:25:58 And then just a quick note on the conversation around the Committee of the Whole. 5:26:01 When we were talking about this item and where to put it, I think my expectation— I can't speak for anybody else, but mine was that this would be about the bonds as a tool, not about the project itself. 5:26:15 That is clearly not what happened. 5:26:18 And based on that assumption, we went with send it to the Public Works Committee. 5:26:22 I do think that there's a need to have a full council conversation about it. 5:26:28 It sounds like a work session would work. 5:26:30 I'm happy to facilitate that or not, as your discretion. 5:26:34 I'm more concerned about the time slot than I am about who has the responsibility for the work of it. 5:26:40 So I'm happy to work on that with, I guess, both in the context of vice president and committee chair and the council president. 5:26:47 But thank you.
5:26:48 Absolutely. 5:26:48 Thank you, Councilor Kanal. 5:26:49 Councilor Zimmerman.
5:26:51 Thank you, and thanks for letting me do this in a 2-part. 5:26:54 I had to run out quick, but thanks for the answer on the last one. 5:26:56 I appreciate that. 5:26:57 I'll just re— I'm going to reframe what you said. 5:26:59 Basically, um, if we were to not issue these bonds, we'd have maybe worse than Sarah Palin's Bridge to Nowhere. 5:27:07 We would have a hole to nowhere that we then have to decommission, refill to nowhere for the tune of about a billion If I kind of got your estimates right. 5:27:16 So that, that was helpful for me to hear, and I appreciate that. 5:27:20 The other part I wanted to just really double-check, because as a, as a layperson for the last 20 years in Portland, just knowing that the feds were talking about something that we had to come in compliance with and trying to come up to speed with that. 5:27:35 So, Priya, you ended, I think, when— before we stepped out, that we still have to do the filtration, or I know there are some folks that want us to zap the water with lights or whatever it is, right? 5:27:49 So if we just say, damn it, we're not doing it, does that mean that the EPA then says, cool, we're gonna take over your system and do it for you? 5:27:58 Is that the situation?
5:28:00 Okay, everybody's nodding their heads, and I'll just tell you, like, I'm not looking forward to Trump water.
5:28:07 That is something that is deeply concerning to me, and I'll tell you why. 5:28:11 Because I don't think that they would give a darn about anybody along Oxbow, Lusted Road, Dodge Park. 5:28:19 I think they'd bulldoze everything and say the hell with it, and there wouldn't be a whole lot of environmental protecting going on. 5:28:27 So I do have that concern, meaning I, like most everybody up here and everybody sitting at the dais, Much of this decision was off to the races before we all got into the seats that we're in, and I'm feeling a commitment, frankly, that you have a responsibility to finish a job once you've started it, even if maybe it wasn't the one you would have picked. 5:28:48 And I'm not even making that value judgment because I'm not really sure that UV lighting water is the thing here. 5:28:55 I'm not sure why that's getting so much attention right now. 5:28:57 I think we all Decided, or previous people decided that wasn't going to work. 5:29:01 But there are some aspects of avoiding the Trump Water idea that are very attractive to me, meaning the thousands of people who will work on this project. 5:29:13 Can we do it from a community benefits standpoint, a PLA? 5:29:16 That means we put Portland wages into— I'll say Portland region workers. 5:29:24 That is attractive to I'll say that. 5:29:26 And then I wanted to double-check how many municipalities are actually on this system. 5:29:34 It's not just Portland Water, is that right?
5:29:38 Correct. 5:29:40 Aside from Portland, we have at least, we have 15 partner agencies who have renewed their contract with us for the next 30 years.
5:29:49 15 Agencies who've renewed their contract with us for the next 30 years, which means when we talk about ratepayers, we're not So we're not just talking about Portland, we're talking about everybody across that system?
5:30:00 Okay, that is somewhat helpful. 5:30:04 It seems like a somewhat of a vote of confidence, if you will, from our customers. 5:30:08 In that sense, we are providing customer service to them. 5:30:12 Um, I mean, I'm very sensitive to the points that were made about how do we, how do we monitor costs, how do we, how do we ensure that we aren't ballooning or doing unnecessary stuff. 5:30:22 But I'm not getting the sense that that's where this conversation is. 5:30:25 I feel like some of the advocacy that's happening today are the same advocates who were there 5 years ago who just lost and are trying to rehash the issue right now. 5:30:35 And I don't know that that is the crux of today's decision. 5:30:39 So I'm leaning quite supportively, mostly because I would like Portland and Oregonians to do this and not federal failing EPA standards to do this. 5:30:51 If we have to do it, I'd like to do it our way. 5:30:55 I believe that the point that Priya made as our Deputy City Administrator, that we have all new leadership up here, is an important point and something that I'm taking very seriously. 5:31:05 And that I think we are working with our, our local labor to make sure that we deliver this project with local labor, with PLA and CBA et cetera, et cetera, that is something I see a future in, even if these 3 years suck. 5:31:20 And I think that that's okay to acknowledge. 5:31:22 But I don't want to be Sarah Palin with my bridge to nowhere that we actually have to take down and put trees back on. 5:31:28 And I definitely don't want Trump Water to be the thing we have to put on our side of our trucks instead of Portland Water. 5:31:33 So you'll have my support when it's time.
5:31:36 Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. 5:31:38 Colleagues, Aye. 5:31:39 With no one else in the queue, this item now moves to second reading. 5:31:44 And that is the end of our agenda. 5:31:45 We are a full 90 minutes over where I thought we'd be, but we made it. 5:31:49 We got everything accomplished. 5:31:51 With that, we are adjourned. 5:31:52 Thank you everybody for being here so late.
Windowbox